Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION SUPPLY

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Warren: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will ensure that no British technical information supplied under the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme is passed on without permission to other German aircraft design teams.

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): The Governmental Memoranda of Understanding relating to this project include provisions designed to ensure that British technical information is not passed on without permission.

Mr. Warren: Can the Minister confirm that no member of the Panavia design team in Munich is engaged in part-time work on the German NKF aircraft, which is very much a potential competitor to the MRCA?

Mr. Corfield: The House will appreciate that I could not give a guarantee to that effect. However, if my hon. Friend has any reason to believe that these proposals are being negatived by that sort of action, I will willingly look into any matter which he cares to bring to my attention.

Concorde

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on further progress with the Concorde.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement

on the progress of test flights of the Concorde.

Mr. Corfield: Concorde's flight tests are continuing to make satisfactory progress We shall review the project thoroughly, in consultation with the French Government, in the light of the results of the current series of tests and the commercial prospects of the aircraft.
The latest estimate of development cost is £825 million at June, 1970, prices. I shall circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Marten: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. When will these tests be concluded and what is the date on which he will be able to come to a commercial decision about the viability of Concorde? What has been the annual average expenditure on Concorde since its inception by Britain alone?

Mr. Corfield: We hope that the tests will be completed by the middle of December. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that they will not be evaluated by that date. It may be some time after that date before I am able to enter into the sort of evaluation he has in mind. The total cost to Her Majesty's Government to date—between November, 1962, and the end of September, 1970—has been £240 million.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not the case that the noise which Concorde is now making, even at subsonic speeds, certainly in the experience of people living near Heathrow, which was visited by Concorde last month, is far in excess of what was expected of it? Can he give an assurance that before Concorde goes into service it will meet the standards currently being applied under the Noise Certification Scheme?

Mr. Corfield: Part of the extra cost which I mentioned is being devoted to that objective. The particular flight to which the hon. Gentleman referred was exceptional in that the engines used on that occasion were not the production engines. They were substantially more noisy that the production engines will be. He should also note that the aircraft landed under full load owing to its having come from Farnborough.

Mr. Onslow: While we hope that Concorde will be successful in every way, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that it is not the only aircraft on which the British aviation industry depends? Would he agree, for example, that it is vitally important that there should be an early and favourable decision in favour of the BAC 311 project?

Mr. Corfield: That is another question. My hon. Friend will know that I have all these matters very much in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to go to the aircraft operators with a view to getting their options converted into firm orders? Can he give an undertaking that there will be no attempt to get mixed up with this issue the whole question of our application to enter the Common Market and that there will be no question of reaching a decision to go ahead with Concorde simply in order to please our French partners?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that one cannot expect airlines to enter into firm commitments until the manufacturer is in a position to give firm undertakings as to the performance of the aircraft, and that cannot be done until after the tests. I envisage that that position will be reached probably by March or April of next year.

Sir G. Nabarro: What everybody wants to know is how much more money we are committed to in respect of Concorde, so that a reasonable appraisal may be

The latest basic estimate of £825 million is divided as follows as between actual past expenditure and estimated future expenditure:



British Government
French Government
Both Governments



£m.
£m.
£m.


Actual costs from 29th November, 1962 to 30th September, 1970 at the prices and exchange rates prevailing when the costs were incurred
240
220
460


Estimates costs from 30th September, 1970 to completion of the programme at June, 1970 prices and an exchange rate of £1=13.33F
165
200
365


Totals
405
420
825

The difference between the latest estimate of £825 million at June, 1970 prices and the former estimate of £730 million at October 1969 prices is made up as follows:




£m.


Former estimate at October, 1969 prices
…
730


Improvements to the propulsion system
…
35


Other adjustments to the programme
…
20


Pay and price increases since October, 1969
…
40


Present estimate
…
825

made of the prospects. Is it not a fact that £240 million is the figure spent up to September, 1970? Should not we be told at an early date—say, within 14 days—whether we are to be confronted with a bill for another £240 million in the next 12 months?

Mr. Corfield: As I indicated in my initial Answer, the total estimate is now £825 million, an increase since the former estimate was given by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) of £95 million. Nearly half of this has been due to inflation. The bulk of the remainder has been due to modifications to the engine.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I heard the Concorde in the Scottish tests and that there could be little provocation created by the noise, which seemed to be acceptable to all those who live along the flight path? I think that it could also be said that what we have invested in the Concorde has been well spent and that what we have still to invest will receive a good reward in due course.

Mr. Corfield: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had heard the aircraft, but I am glad to hear his reactions.

Mr. Huckfield: What is the latest number of options on the Concorde taken by airlines?

Mr. Corfield: The options have not increased. I recollect that they were 70.

Following are the further details:

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Traffic Congestion

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to enable him to take over from local authorities the responsibility for regulating traffic and parking, in view of the need to speed up traffic and ease road congestion.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: First, may I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment? Is it not obvious that something should be done to get an improvement in the present shocking system of parking and resultant traffic congestion in all our big cities? Is there not a need to get some co-ordination here?

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations. I agree that something is necessary. We think that local authorities are capable of taking the decisions themselves. At the same time, a great deal of advice is issued from my Department. A comprehensive manual of guidance entitled "Traffic Management and Parking" was issued to local authorities in 1969 giving detailed advice on such problems as those which concern the hon. Member. In addition we are studying short-term traffic and transport plans submitted by local authorities, advice is transmitted to local authorities by divisional road engineers, and the Department holds periodic seminars up and down the country.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate studies into new methods for reducing traffic congestion in city centres.

Mr. Graham Page: Studies of several methods are in hand and are making progress, for example new techniques of area traffic control, more effective parking control, better use of traffic wardens and further bus priority provisions. The application of these new methods will be a part of the modern concept of urban planning, the structure plans and local plans, the furtherance of which is one of the Government's main objectives in local government.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Leicester, with some 11,000 families on the housing list, an enormous scheme is planned for the roads in the centre of the city, with other schemes coming in from the outskirts? Would it not be better to place homes before roads in those circumstances?

Mr. Graham Page: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific Question on the subject, I will endeavour to answer it.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is proposing to issue the formula for guidance in calculating the cost of reimbursing concessionary fares.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I understand that local authority and bus operator associations are not generally in favour of such a formula. I am continuing discussions to see whether such a formula would serve any purpose.

Mr. Boardman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many local authorities, such as Leicester, are waiting for that formula so that they may consider giving concessionary fares to certain of those who use the Midland Red bus undertaking? Will he also bear in mind that the very high fares of this nationalised bus undertaking represent a very heavy burden on the elderly, in contrast with those of the local authority in Leicester?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend would find that there would be no purpose in introducing the circular from the point of view of implementing a scheme such as the one which could be implemented in his local authority area. The circular will not make that possible. It is a matter for the local authority. There is always a differential between the fares of urban and rural transport services, but that reflects the degree of cross-subsidisation which goes on between the two.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Conservative councils are hiding behind the formula which they say will be issued and have no intention of introducing concessionary fares? Will he confirm that there is nothing to stop local authorities issuing books of tickets,


which do not need negotiation but can simply be handed out to pensioners?

Mr. Heseltine: There is nothing holding up the implementation of concessionary fares by local authorities if they wish to do so.

Mr. Mulley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what my hon. Friend says is so? Many local authorities use the lack of a formula as an excuse for not implementing concessionary fares schemes. Will not he send a circular to local authorities saying that they should go ahead with schemes, whether or not such a formula is to come into being?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to local authorities that they could go ahead with or without the circular. I am sure that they are well aware of the fact.

Motorways (Safety Barriers)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position with regard to research and development in connection with determining the best type of crash barrier for motorways; and by what date he anticipates a decision will be reached on this matter.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Corrugated tensioned beam type crash barriers are used generally on motorways. Several other approved types are used for particular locations. All of these were selected following research by the Road Research Laboratory.

Mr. Redmond: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that there are a number of people who consider that crash barriers are dangerous in that they bounce vehicles back into the carriageway? Has the Department considered the possibility of digging pits in the central area, in which case vehicles would go into them and not on to either carriageway?

Mr. Heseltine: On balance, I think that the advice of the Road Research Laboratory would be that it is better to bounce back than to sink in the mire.

Unlicensed Vehicles

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in view of the fact that enforcement officers are refusing to take action on unlicensed

road vehicles reported to them by Members of Parliament and the general public, whether he will introduce new legislation so as to ensure enforcement of the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Acts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Within the available manpower limits, local licensing authorities and the police are already active in enforcing vehicle excise law. The centralised licensing system already authorised by legislation will in due course provide a better basis for thorough enforcement.

Mr. Lewis: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Is he aware that many people can vouch for the fact that enforcement officers have refused to take action when cases have been reported to them. I have a letter to that effect from the G.L.C.'s enforcement officer. If they receive large salaries to do a job, should not they do it, even though it may become a little onerous and difficult for them because of the prevalence of this offence?

Mr. Griffiths: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has made a large number of submissions to the G.L.C. and the police. But unsubstantiated reports of vehicles not displaying licences are not enough for successful prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman has used up a lot of time of both the police and the local authority on wild goose chases.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the continual evasion of the enforcement of the law on the part of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

House of Commons (Fire Brigade Units)

Mr. Mudd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why, on 23rd July 1970, the fire brigade unit at the House of Commons was not equipped with breathing apparatus; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Until the incident on 23rd July it was thought sufficient for the London Fire Brigade, who are immediately warned of any


fire or similar incident, to provide any special equipment required. Respirators affording protection against CS Gas have now been provided for the use of the Fire Brigade unit at the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Mudd: Has training been given in the use of this apparatus and the relevant appliances?

Mr. Channon: I understand that these respirators, which provide adequate protection against CS gas, require no special training in their use.

Newcastle-on-Tyne—Tynemouth (Coast Road)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the coast road from Newcastle-on-Tyne to Tynemouth; and on what date the cost to the Exchequer was met.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: So far, £4·7 million, on which grant has been paid.
As is usual, payments were made to the highway authorities as work progressed.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. It must be due to my bad handwriting, but my Question should refer to payment "by" the Treasury and not "to" the Treasury, which is a very different matter.
In any event, why does the Treasury take such a long time to pay its bills? Is my hon. Friend aware that I opened the Tynemouth section as long as three years ago, and that the county council is extremely annoyed with the Treasury, as it should be?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will know that the last section of the road was opened in June, 1969. It is true that there has been an excess claim on this road and that we are obviously having to look at it with great care.

Planning Blight

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now introduce a Bill to expedite the purchase by local authorities of properties affected by planning blight.

Mr. Peter Walker: I consider that this is one of the major questions which Governments have to tackle. The creation of the new Department provides us with an opportunity to review the whole question of compensation and planning blight. I have already announced that such a review shall take place.

Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of householders are suffering severe inconvenience and hardship due to the present uncertainty? Will he ensure that the review being carried out in his Department is completed speedily so that he can come to the House with his proposals at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Walker: I am aware that considerable hardship is caused under this heading, and I shall certainly speed up the review as far as possible. As previous Governments know, it is a complicated and tricky subject, but I hope to conclude the review as quickly as possible.

Mr. Freeson: I accept that it is a tricky and complicated subject, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that the report was completed very soon before the General Election on 18th June? The report is before him. Why does he not propose to take action and announce it today?

Mr. Walker: If what I was given when I arrived at the Ministry is the hon. Gentleman's idea of a complete report, I must tell him that I thought it was highly unsatisfactory and that I am carrying out a far wider review.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the special problems of cities like Peterborough where the new town procedure has been superimposed on an ancient civic authority, which means that we have many more cases of this sort than one would have in normal circumstances?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Killingworth and Cramlington

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the requirements of Killingworth and Cramlington, details of which are in his


possession, will be met as part of the regional policy for the Northern Region.

Mr. Graham Page: Upon my recent visit to the Northern Economic Planning Region, the Northumberland County Council put before me a number of matters concerning Killingworth and Cramlington, such as the re-classification of roads, grants for sewerage schemes, the boundaries of the Special Development Area, sports facilities and loan sanctions for joint facilities. I was able to satisfy the Council on some matters; the remainder are being studied. If my hon. Friend will say which she has in mind I shall be happy to write to her about them.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I will not go into details. Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the Government's business to do something for the development areas? Therefore, as the Northumberland County Council is a jolly good Conservative Council, will he please get on to dealing satisfactorily with its recommendations?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend will have heard the statement yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government are indeed helping the development areas, and this one in particular.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the Conservative Government had done their job in the late '50s and early '60s in regard to the development of Cramlington and Killingworth new towns, the type of Question that he is facing today would not have to be raised?

Mr. Page: We are finding that if the previous Government had done their job in their last period of office—1964 up to the present—we should not be so bothered now.

Passenger Transport Authority (Merseyside)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the Passenger Transport Authority on Merseyside; whether he intends to assist the Passenger Transport Authority by financial grants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It has already been announced that all four Passenger Transport Authorities are to remain in being. Discussions are taking place with Merseyside P.T.A. as to the possible solutions to their problems.

Mr. Heffer: While half welcoming that statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that the question of public transport in areas like Merseyside cannot be solved on the basis of Tory philosophy, that it is absolutely essential that public transport is regarded as a public social service, and that we cannot continue to put burdens of increased cost on the users of public transport? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that some financial aid will be given to the P.T.A. to overcome the difficult problems arising from the deficit that it inherited?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the attempt to solve the passenger transport problem of Liverpool was the introduction of the Passenger Transport Authority, which is hardly a Conservative philosophy. I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that there will be any grant coming from the Government, although we are having discussions with Liverpool as to what can be done about its problems.

Mr. Tilney: Do not the bulk of the difficulties of the Merseyside P.T.A. stem from the Transport Act, 1968, passed under the last Administration, and the subsequent regulations under Statutory Instrument restricting the hours of work of drivers, to their financial detriment? Indeed, conductors now earn more than drivers.

Mr. Heseltine: Certainly. The bus industry has made strong representations to my right hon. Friend about the effect of the reduction in drivers' hours and conditions on the services that they are able to supply. My hon. Friend is right that the Passenger Transport Authorities, introduced by the last Government, were supposed to be able to cope with the problems, and obviously they are finding difficulties greater than they anticipated.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear his reference to drivers' hours? Is it the Government's intention to go back to the old hours which means that a driver has to work more than 132 hours a fortnight to earn a living wage?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman modified the drivers' hours provisions when he had the opportunity to do so. We have looked at the representations that have been made and are considering what further modifications are possible, just as the right hon. Gentleman did.

Labour-only Subcontracting

Mr. Heffer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce a Bill to deal with labour-only subcontracting in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on this matter shortly.

Mr. Heffer: I trust that the hon. Gentleman seriously intends to bring in a Bill at the earliest possible moment, as the Conservative Party supported the last Bill brought in by the Labour Government. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that in the statement there will be a clear declaration that the Bill will be brought in at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. However, I can tell him that it will be made shortly and that it will be very clear.

British Railways (Fare Increases)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 24th July he has intervened to prevent proposed fare increases on British Railways.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): None Sir.

Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for many people fares are an unavoidable expenditure and that, therefore, increases are directly inflationary? Does the Minister recall the specific pledges on prices, particularly those in nationalised industries, made by the then Leader of the Opposition during the General Election? Does he agree that his own inaction, coupled with yesterday's statement, finally reveals those pledges as nothing more than a cheap and despicable deceit?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. The level of railway fares, as he will be well aware, is a matter for the railways. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that he should congratulate his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, on the acumen which he showed in choosing the date for the General Election at such a time when he would avoid having to face the nasty consequences of his own policy.

Mr. Barnett: Did the Chancellor's statement yesterday represent any change in the Government's policy on intervention in the case of social lines? If it did not represent any change, what did it mean?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman were to address that question to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me about what my right hon. Friend said yesterday. He should address a Question to him.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend make abundantly clear that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that the nationalised industries should be commercially viable, should pay their way, and should eternally show a proper return on the net capital sum vested in each of them? Will he desist from "Meddlesome Mattie" policies and exhortations from hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I cannot say with what pleasure I accept my hon. Friend's advice and reject that tendered to me by the Opposition.

Mr. Mulley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Chancellor said that a review of the grants for unremunerative lines was in progress? Will he tell us whether that is so and when it will be completed? Is he also aware that whenever the question of closing a railway line arises, the most vehement protests come from Conservative Members in this House and Conservative local authorities?

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken his lines well. He ought to put down a Question. The point does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Reverting to the wording of the original Question, may I ask on how many occasions, since


3.30 p.m. yesterday, British Railways have been in touch with the Minister about the gratuitous fare increases which the Chancellor has imposed?

Mr. Peyton: Going back to my original Answer, "None, Sir."

Building Industry (Apprentices)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the building industry concerning its declining number of apprentices; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend has had discussions with representatives of the construction industry, and he is keeping the matter under urgent review.

Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that if we are to solve the country's housing problems by building enough houses, it will be necessary not only to have the right positive policies from the Government on the financial front but also to ensure adequate supplies of skilled personnel?

Mr. Channon: Yes. I am sure that that is right. It is a great pity that 1969, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power, showed such a significant decline in apprenticeships.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the fall-off in trends in the building industry is due to the disastrous policies of the Labour Party which caused such high unemployment in that industry?

Mr. Channou: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The figures for apprenticeships, about which the hon. Gentleman asked, bear this out in full.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Foster Children

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with existing legislation concerning the care of children by foster parents particularly where they have been in care for some years; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Departmental

Committee on Adoption published last week provisional proposals for discussion which bear on the position of long-term foster parents. My right hon. Friend intends to await the Committee's final report, which will be prepared in the light of further evidence, before considering the amendment of existing legislation.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is some national concern in Scotland about the effect on children who are in the case of foster parents for many years? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the publicity given to this issue at times is not very helpful to the future lives of foster children, and that as a consequence there is some urgency about the need to deal with the problem?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the adoption committee is aware of the recent cases which have given rise to public comment and in which the hon. Gentleman has taken such an interest, but I think he will agree that it would be wrong to proceed with legislation relating to this matter without waiting for the committee to complete its report.

Schoolchildren (Dentures)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the waiting list in Scotland for schoolchildren requiring dentures between the ages of five and 15 years; and if he will list the education authority areas.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am not aware of a waiting list for dentures under the school dental service in any area.

Mr. Eadie: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's reply because there has been mounting evidence, and indeed there have been lectures and speeches to the effect, that in Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is evidence of the rapid deterioration and neglect of young children's teeth? In view of the mounting evidence, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to examine the problem and advise the appropriate authorities on


how to deal with it, because the present situation can have long-term consequences and lead to a deterioration in the health of these young persons?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is raising a rather wider issue. My reply to his original Question is that I am not aware of any waiting list in any area. If there are any difficulties of which the hon. Gentleman has details, I hope that he will let me know, and I shall look into them.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily irresponsible, and a bit complacent. In view of the changes announced yesterday by the Chancellor, particularly the withdrawal of free school milk and the increase in the price of school meals, does he not think that there will be a deterioration in the dental health of children? Will he show a greater sense of urgency in dealing with the problem?

Mr. Taylor: Again the hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider issue. He will be aware that exemptions for young people under 18 are to be continued. As regards the original Question, if the hon. Gentleman is aware of a waiting list in any area—and that is what the Question is about—I shall be glad to look into it.

Kincardine Road Bridge

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will have a survey undertaken of the present level of traffic using the Kincardine Road Bridge.

Mr. Edward Taylor: A traffic census was carried out at Kincardine Bridge in August as part of the normal arrangements for obtaining information about traffic volumes.

Mr. Douglas: I welcome the Minister's reply, but would he not agree that those figures show an increase in the amount of traffic using this bridge, and that therefore the possibility of re-siting it ought to be considered in view of the economic development of that area?

Mr. Taylor: We considered the results of this census, and from all the evidence that I have received I am satisfied that this bridge will be adequate until at least the mid-80's.

Population

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures of Scotland's population for the years 1960 to 1970.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The mid-year figures for the years 1960 to 1969 are to be found in the Annual Report of the Registrar General for 1968 and the Annual Estimates of the Population of Scotland 1969. The Registrar General's estimate for 1970 will be available shortly.

Mr. Douglas: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for recent years in particular show that there has been a stabilisation, indeed a growth, of the population in Scotland, due particularly to the advancement of job opportunities and the raising of incomes there as a result of the regional policies of the previous Government? Does he not also agree that the Chancellor's statement yesterday imperils this growth, and that the most honourable thing that he can do is to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has manifestly lost the battle in the Cabinet, to tender the seals of his office to Her Majesty?

Mr. Taylor: I might be tempted to answer the rather unfair and I think irresponsible observations of the hon. Gentleman, which certainly do not relate to my Department, but I shall resist the temptation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the regional policies adopted over the last few years. If he studies the figures he will see that over the last six years the population of Scotland has declined.

Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the United Kingdom's entry to the European Economic Community would be of advantage to Scotland? Or can we take it that the plums of Ministerial office have rather sweetened the hon. Gentleman's personal attitude to the E.E.C., which hitherto was somewhat acid?

Mr. Taylor: Irrespective of what may be said on the issue of the Common Market, I doubt whether it relates directly to the Registrar General and the figures for Scotland's population.

Mr. Ross: Apart from the general figures for which publication is sought in the Question, will the hon. Gentleman


give us the figures, which must be in the Scottish Office, of emigration for the last year? Are they so good that the Government are afraid to publish them?

Mr. Taylor: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not scared to publish anything. I have already said that very shortly we shall publish these figures. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, unfortunately, over the last six years the population of Scotland declined. We are hoping for a reversal of this trend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Select Committees

Mr. Marquand: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to publish his proposals for a new system of select committees.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now make a statement on the proposed Select Committee on Public Expenditure.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The Government's proposals for the future pattern of Select Committees are set out in the Green Paper presented to Parliament last week. They envisage the transformation of the Estimates Committee into an Expenditure Committee and the reappointment of the Select Committees on Nationalised Industries, Science and Technology, Race Relations and Immigration, and Scottish Affairs. I hope to arrange an early debate on the proposals so that the Government may have the benefit of the views of the House before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are pleased that he has moved this far towards the Procedure Committee's proposals? Is he further aware that the size that he suggests in his Green Paper for the proposed Expenditure Committee seems rather too small to enable it to do the job that the Procedure Committee suggested it should be doing? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when this Committee has been going for a little while its size will be considered again if it turns out to be too small?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As regards the size of the Committee, I put this forward as a figure for discussion. I shall be pleased to listen to the views of hon. Members during the subsequent debate, and if necessary I shall reconsider the position as time goes on. What we all have to face in the House is the demands made on hon Members' time in the Chamber, and outside it, in committees. We have to find a balance between the various demands made on hon. Members. I have done the best that I could, and I hope that the result will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the Green Paper, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is some disappointment about the size of the Committee and about what appears to be a dilution of his commitment to the whole concept of the Public Expenditure Committee? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to envisage the expansion of this Committee in the light of the recommendations that have been made? Can he give us the details of the arrangements that have been made for this year's review of public expenditure?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the question of the dilution of my commitment, I decided early in August that I would read all the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure and all the debates on procedure that had taken place for about the last ten years. These I have read and, having done so, I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to go the whole way with a very large Committee on Expenditure while at the same time preserving the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and the Select Committee on Science and Technology, all of which, from what had been said, I recognised had provided a valuable part of the House's work. I wanted to keep them. I tried to find the best balance between the two. As for the other points that have been raised, I would prefer to await the debate, when we can discuss them further.

Mr. Longden: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee on Education did a great deal of work inquiring into teacher training? Is that work to be sunk without trace?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the Government were committed to an inquiry into teacher training it seemed right to me that all the evidence taken by that Committee should be referred to the inquiry and be taken into account there. It seemed right to have one body rather than two doing it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House is considerably in his debt for the consideration that he has given to the representations made to him in this matter? But has thought also been given to finding a way of avoiding the considerable hiatus between each Session of Parliament before a Select Committee is reappointed? If we can choose Mr. Speaker for a whole Parliament, cannot we choose a Select Committee for a whole Parliament also?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into that question. In the Green Paper I put forward the position as it stands, under which we are obliged to reappoint Select Committees at the start of every Session. That is the position. If it were thought right to change it, I should consider it.

Mr. English: On the question of Members' time, would the right hon. Gentleman consider putting some Bills through Select Committees, as was originally envisaged when Committees were set up for Bills at the latter end of the nineteenth century? A Departmental specialist Committee which also considered Bills would save Members' time and not waste it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must admit that my reading did not go back as far as the latter end of the nineteenth century. Of course the hon. Gentleman's views will be considered when the whole problem of Standing Committees is considered. It is a wider question than the question of Select Committees only.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In the light of these proposals, what plans has my right hon. Friend for the Estimates Sub-Committees from the previous Session which had taken the bulk of their evidence but were unable to publish their reports?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should hope that the answer was that they would be taken over by the new Select Committee on Expenditure—if the House approves—when it is established and when it decides what Committees it will set up.

Members' Financial Interests

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the recommendations of the Select Committee's Report on Members' Financial Interests.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the House is indebted to the Committee for its statement of the principles which should guide the conduct of Members. This I gladly endorse. But the Resolutions proposed by the Committee have defects which I can see no means of curing and I could not recommend them to the House.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to have a debate on the Floor of the House on this matter, as I believe he promised before we rose for the Summer Recess? Is it not more urgent now, in view of the fact that the House consists of many more Tories with outside business interests, including farmers on the Front Bench who will get a share of the £54 million extra which was given to the farmers recently? In view of that fact, is it not desirable that the public should know exactly what outside business interests Members have, and is it not very important that this report should be debated by the House at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not aware that I gave a promise to debate this report. I shall check my words, and if I did give such a promise, I shall fulfil it. As to the Resolutions proposed by the Committee, one of the troubles that the House must face is that that formula would certainly mean that any Member sponsored by a trade union would not be able to talk on matters concerned with trade unions—and I do not think that that would be in the general interest of the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take care that he is not infected by the spleen evinced by the hon. Member on this matter? If the attitude that the hon. Member adopts is presented in any rigid form it will ruin Parliament. Members' outside interests are known to their constituents at the time of the election—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member himself said yesterday, he must put a question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Their outside interests often make them much better Members, and the spleenful attempts that the hon. Gentleman is making to find something sordid in this is not helpful to Parliament.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that I fully accept the general statement of principles set out by the Select Committee. I think that they are acceptable to the House as a whole. My only quarrel is with the specific Resolutions. I am advised that they would have the sort of consequences that I suggested. I think it is clear what we all want. When hon. Members speak or advocate causes as long as it is known what are their general outside interests, that is right. That is what we all owe to the House, and I believe that it must rest on the good sense of Members to provide it.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make proposals for improving the arrangements for the tabling and answering of Parliamentary Questions in the light of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to propose changes without more experience of the progress made with Questions in this Parliament. We have got off to a fair start, and I shall make it my business to watch how we continue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion of an increase in Ministerial output, but did his Summer Recess reading include the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a full 60 minutes Question Time, with a possibility of restoring second supplementary questions by back-bench Members? Would not a development of that kind strengthen his own proclaimed intention to reinforce the authority of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am prepared to consider what my right hon. Friend said, but I should like to have more experience of the working of Question Time in this Parliament before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not help the House if Questions were not allowed to

be put down longer than two weeks before they were due to be answered? Under present arrangements we get a lot of stale stuff on the Order Paper that has been put down three weeks before hand.

Mr. Whitelaw: The views of Members in all parts of the House are somewhat divided. I should like to consider the matter further, but I am prepared to hear representations by any hon. Member on this subject.

Security

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the steps being taken to improve security in the House of Commons; and what outside advice he has taken on the matter.

Mr. Gorst: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the incident which occurred in the Chamber on Thursday, 23rd July, he is satisfied as to the security arrangements in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mudd: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps are now proposed to increase the security of the Chamber of the House of Commons and the safety of its honourable Members.

Mr. Whitelaw: The appointment of a Security Co-ordinator by the authorities of both Houses has already been announced. Several studies have been undertaken into the matter of the security of the House during the recess, and I propose to invite the Services Committee urgently to consider this whole question.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, while we would all agree that we need some better security than we have had hitherto, there would be strong objections to frisking people going into the galleries? Nevertheless, does not the Minister agree that there should be some medium by which back-bench Members could express themselves individually—I presume to the Services Committee—on these very serious matters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said. I am


sure that his views will be carefully noted by the Services Committee and that, equally, its members will be only too pleased to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this problem. It is a matter for them, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said.

Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if there are any recommendations for alterations to the nature of the Chamber itself or the public gallery, or to implement any sort of searches of members of the public, the House will be given an opportunity to discuss the proposals before they are implemented?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that general assurances are always dangerous, but on what my hon. Friend said, clearly, if major changes of the sort that he envisages were to be put forward by the Services Committee, I have no doubt that both they and the House as a whole would wish to discuss them.

Mr. Mudd: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that this is a matter of some urgency and that the appointment of a co-ordinator and the various procedures are prolonging a decision to an unnecessary and insecure degree?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I could accept what my hon. Friend said, particularly when he spoke of an "insecure" degree. I do not think that that is so. If I judge the mood of the House of Commons rightly on this matter, I think that we want to consider sensible precautions but that we have absolutely no intention of being panicked into taking action which we might subsequently regret.

Select Committee on Science and Technology

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to re-constitute the Select Committee on Science and Technology and, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, invite it to study the Concorde project with a view to advising whether it should be continued or abandoned.

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Green Paper published

last week and to my reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand). The answer to the second part of the Question is No, Sir.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Lord President not agree that, since development costs of this aircraft have escalated to a point over five times beyond the estimate of 1962, and since there are a variety of problems, ranging from unremunerative payload to the prospect of airports in the United States being closed to Concorde, it is vital that this whole project should be minutely scrutinised by an all-party body of this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is very important, I think, that I do not get involved in the various policy discussions about the Concorde in answer to this question. Clearly, however, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, when reconstituted, must decide what it inquires into, as, of course, must the Select Committee on Expenditure decide. These are basically matters for the Committees and not for me.

Catering Department

Mr. Torney: asked the Chairman of Select Committee of House of Commons (Services) whether the employees of the Catering Department of the House of Commons are members of a trade union.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I have been asked to reply. Members of the staff of the Catering Department are free to join trade unions if they so wish. The union generally considered applicable is the Municipal and General Workers' Union.

Mr. Torney: Would the hon. Gentleman please inform me whether facilities would be granted to the appropriate trade union to meet the workers in the Catering Department within the precincts of the Department?

Dr. Bennett: I can certainly see no reason why not.

Dame Joan Vickers: Has my hon. Friend been able to have a meeting? We previously had meetings in the Members' Dining Room between staff and the trade union concerned. Will he be holding these meetings again?

Dr. Bennett: I am certainly willing to afford any facilities which are asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland (Troops)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present strength of British troops and the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Excluding the small Royal Navy and R.A.F. permanent garrisons, there are some 7,000 Regular soldiers and Royal Marines, and some 3,800 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he satisfied that the present political developments in Northern Ireland will enable the reduction in the forces, to which we were hopefully looking forward, but which political events seem to be retarding, to take place? Second, would he comment on the actual recruiting figures for the U.D.R., the proportion of the various elements in the community represented in it, and the undertaking given by the previous Government about the composition of the force?

Mr. Gilmour: The number of British troops in Northern Ireland is, of course, no greater now than it was at this time last year, but the force levels are continually kept under review according to the nature of the security situation. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the latter part of his supplementary, I should be glad to answer it.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In view of the evidence in the arms conspiracy trial, have any additional precautions been taken by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Gilmour: No, but naturally all aspects of the situation are kept under continual review.

Mr. Kaufman: When can I expect a satisfactory reply to my letter to the hon. Gentleman about the legality of the operations on the weekend of 3rd July? Can he reconcile his noble Friend's statement on 6th July in this House—that there was no curfew—with General Freeland's circular imposing a curfew on 3rd July?

Mr. Gilmour: I am confident that I can reconcile any inconsistency, but certainly not in answer to this Question.

Royal Air Force (Personnel)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will state the number of men in the Royal Air Force of the rank of senior aircraftman and below and the number of officers of the rank of wing commander and above.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Antony Lambton): On 1st September, 1970, 35,827 men held the rank of Senior Aircraftman or below, and 2,446 the rank of Wing Commander or above.

Mr. Hardy: Would the Minister not agree that there appears to be an imbalance in the numbers of Chiefs and Indians in the Service? Would he not revise the organisation in the Service to effect a reduction in public expenditure?

Mr. Lambton: The proportion of officers is entirely determined by the jobs that have to be done.

Donaldson Committee

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of State for Defence what action the Government proposes taking on the recommendations of the Donaldson Committee on the recruitment and release of boys in the services.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of State for Defence when the Donaldson Committee will report.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): We have received a full and valuable report from the Committee which we are studying sympathetically with a view to the early publication of the report itself and of the Government's conclusions.

Miss Lestor: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Why has there been such a delay in publishing this report, bearing in mind that the Committee on this subject was sitting for some long time during last June and that this whole matter of young boy recruits has been a matter of grave concern to this House over a long period?

Lord Balniel: The report concerns a very complex and important matter for the military forces. I think that it deserves very full, deep and sympathetic study. As soon as possible, we shall be making a statement to the House.

Air-Sea Rescues

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of State for Defence what costs were involved in air-sea rescues undertaken by Coastal Command during 1970 and the nature of the rescues in which the Royal Air Force were involved.

Mr. Lambton: Search and rescue helicopters of Strike Command established in support of military flying over the sea cost about £1 million a year. In addition, at least one Shackleton aircraft of Strike Command is always at readiness within the United Kingdom for protracted or distant search and rescue operations. This commitment is met from within the existing long-range maritime patrol force and entails no extra cost. When they can be spared from their Service commitments these aircraft have, as in previous years, responded to calls from civil authorities for assistance in emergencies in seas around our coasts.

Mr. Milne: In paying tribute to Coastal Command for its part in air-sea rescues, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will undertake in the very near future, in view of the report on the Fraserburgh lifeboat disaster, to have a look at the question of co-ordination between Coastal Command and the lifeboat service in order further to improve this excellent service?

Mr. Lambton: There is already this consultation, I think, but certainly there will be more of it.

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the approximate average waiting time for quarters in the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The waiting time for married accommodation varies a good deal according to individual circumstances and to garrison locations. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind I should be glad to look into it for him.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Gentleman try to improve on the situation regarding the waiting time for quarters, because it is, one understands, a source of considerable dissatisfaction in B.A.O.R. according to what was heard by a parliamentary

delegation which visited there earlier this year?

Mr. Gilmour: It is true that there is a good deal of concern, which I, too, have met, but there is already in hand the acquisition of approximately 1,600 additional quarters. About 130 have been completed and are being occupied. Plans for a further batch of quarters are now being worked on.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is aware that medical services for the British Army of the Rhine are inadequate for operational purposes; and what plans he has to deal with the matter in the event of a serious emergency affecting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In the event of a serious emergency affecting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the British Army of the Rhine would be reinforced from the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not Government policy to divulge the details of such plans.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is still reason to believe that the medical services would be inadequate for an emergency and also that it is particularly demoralising for any body of armed troops to find themselves in a situation in which their casualties are inadequately dealt with?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course I agree with the second part of that Question, and plans are continually reviewed to take account of the changing situation.

Fleet Air Arm

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he has completed his investigation into the rôle and cost of the Fleet Air Arm.

Lord Balniel: We have completed our study of the implications of some continuation of naval fixed-wing flying beyond 1972 and decided that although H.M.S. "Eagle" is to be paid off as planned, H.M.S. "Ark Royal" will be retained and run on as an aircraft carrier until the late 1970s. The cost will be met within the defence budget targets set out in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 (Cmnd. 4521) presented today.

Mr. Mackenzie: As it seems to many people that the Government have broken an important pledge which they gave to their supporters on the question of the Fleet Air Arm, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say how he proposes to find the aircrew to man "Ark Royal" until 1972?

Lord Balniel: The manning of the ship will be achieved partially as a result of deployment within the Fleet and partially as a result of the decision in respect of the conversion of H.M.S. "Lion".

Mr. Wall: Accepting that it would be impossible at an early stage to man two aircraft carriers, may I ask my hon. Friend to say whether H.M.S. "Eagle" will be kept in reserve against any potential emergency?

Lord Balniel: H.M.S. "Eagle" will be paid off but, of course, the option will remain open.

Mr. George Thomson: Will the aircrew be provided in the latter years of the decade by the R.A.F. or by a continuation of the Fleet Air Arm? The answer to this question is not clear from the White Paper.

Lord Balniel: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman awaits the statement that is to be made on the White Paper.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it proposed to deploy "Ark Royal" east of Suez? If not, what air cover will be given to our ships there outside land-based aircraft range?

Lord Balniel: H.M.S. "Ark Royal" will be assigned to Saclant, as has been repeatedly requested, and therefore its major deployment will be in the Atlantic and Mediterranean; but, of course, it will be able to go to other parts of the world.

DEFENCE

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): With permission, I will make a statement on the progress which the Government have made since taking office towards fulfilling their undertakings on defence.
We set ourselves three objectives: to enable Britain to resume within her resources a proper share of responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability in the world; to make good, so

far as possible, the deficiencies we found in the Armed Forces and to create a better appreciation of their rôle; and to establish a sound financial basis for defence plans in the future.
Following a searching and critical review of the defence programme we inherited, we have taken a number of major decisions. N.A.T.O. remains the first priority, but these decisions reflect the Government's determination that Britain should also play her part in countering threats to stability outside the N.A.T.O. area. They cover a continuing British military presence in the Malaysia and Singapore area; major improvements in the capabilities of each Service; and, as my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, defence budget targets for the next four years.
First, South-East Asia. We have proposed to the Commonwealth Governments of Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore that five-Power defence arrangements should be established as soon as possible, to which we would contribute forces from the three Services which would broadly complement the contributions of the other four Governments. These arrangements would be based on a political commitment of a consultative nature, undertaken equally by all five Governments, relating to the defence of Malaysia and Singapore; they would replace the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement.
The four Governments have welcomed our planned military contribution. The main components of this will be a number of frigates or destroyers, a battalion group, a detachment of Nimrod long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and some Whirlwind helicopters. The four Governments have agreed to work out with us the new political arrangements. Consultation on this, and on other aspects of our proposals, is now taking place. We have proposed that there should be a meeting next year of the Ministers of the five Governments.
We are continuing discussions with leaders in the Gulf and other interested countries on how Britain can best contribute to the maintenance of peace and stability in the area.
Next, the capabilities of the Services. We found the Services deficient in both manpower and equipment. The Royal


Navy would have been left with a most serious gap in its capability as a result of the plan of the previous Administration to phase out the fixed-wing aircraft carriers in 1972. We have, therefore, decided to introduce as soon as possible a surface-launched anti-ship guided-weapon system, EXOCET. This system is in an advanced stage of development by the French Government, with whom we are now negotiating an Anglo-French collaborative programme for its production.
We have also decided to run on H.M.S. "Ark Royal" until the late 1970s, thus contributing a valuable increase to N.A.T.O's maritime strength. This decision will not prejudice the gradual assumption by the Royal Air Force of the responsibility for the provision of fixed-wing air support for the Royal Navy.
The Army, as a result of poor recruitment in recent years, is seriously short of the men it needs. The rundown plan of the previous Administration failed to provide adequately for unforeseen contingencies and the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve has been reduced to a level where there is no longer any uncommitted element. As the demands of the Northern Ireland situation have shown, the Army's infantry resources are especially under strain.
The Government have already announced their decision to halt the rundown of the Army to the extent that the manpower shortage permits. Their plans for representative squadron and company units will provide a nucleus for potential expansion and enable the names of a number of famous regiments to be retained.
We have now decided to retain the Brigade of Gurkhas, whose future was put in doubt by the previous Administration. The retention of these splendid soldiers in the British Army will help to relieve the strain on the infantry.
We are also embarking on a gradual expansion of the TAVR by establishing an uncommitted reserve of initially about 10,000 men, armed with modern equipment though on lighter scales than existing TAVR units. We shall be opening discussions immediately with the Council of Territorial, Auxiliary and

Volunteer Reserve Associations and with the associations themselves.
In addition, we intend to increase our contribution of reserve forces to N.A.T.O. by forming an additional TAVR armoured car regiment.
The Royal Air Force is short of frontline aircraft, particularly in Germany. We have decided to provide a further four squadrons of Jaguar close-support aircraft for N.A.T.O. in this important rôle. This will be achieved by reorganising our plans for the advanced training of pilots, without reducing the essentially high standard of training, and by revising our plans for the production of Jaguar aircraft.
More information about these decisions is set out in a White Paper presented today. They will have to be worked out within the constraints imposed by the current serious shortage of uniformed manpower; and within defence budget targets which, although higher than the provisional allocations to defence published last year by the previous Administration, will make a valuable contribution towards the Government's public expenditure objectives.
We shall not, however, be cancelling any major project now on order; but savings to be made will require us to cut or defer a number of projects of lesser priority mainly in the building and equipment field. The Government are satisfied that these reductions will not affect their ability to meet their planned commitments.
There is much work to be done to put these changes into effect. We are also still examining parts of the defence programme; and the streamlining of the headquarters and the introduction of improved management techniques will continue.
I shall be making a fuller report in the annual Defence White Paper early next year. But the decisions we have already taken will enable us to make a significant improvement in our military contribution to N.A.T.O. while, at the same time, fulfilling our obligations to our Commonwealth partners in South-East Asia. I also believe that they clearly demonstrate the importance which this Government attach to the security of the nation and the high value we place on our Armed Forces.

Mr. George Thomson: Is the Minister aware that when dealing with Malaysia and Singapore his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, talked about a presence that would cost £100 million, plus or minus, and that the White Paper talks about £5 million to £10 million? Is he aware, therefore, that in the light of this we are very glad within 100 days to have converted the Government to 95 per cent. of the historic shift that the Labour Government brought about in Britain's east-of-Suez presence? Is the noble Lord further aware that what is left is window dressing, and very dangerous window dressing, which is inclined to go back to the previous Tory policies of accepting implied commitments without either the capacity or the manpower to meet them?
May I ask the Minister a number of specific questions? Is he aware that the party opposite promised that it would go away from fixed ceilings? Is it not going back to this? Is not the ceiling fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday a ceiling which means that, instead of spending more on defence, a smaller proportion of the gross national product will be spent on defence?
What we would like to know, therefore, and what is not contained in the White Paper, is what economy the Government will make—it should be spelled out and costed—to meet the extra costs, modest in the case of Malaysia and Singapore, but more substantial in the case of EXOCET and of the Territorial Army. There again, the Government spoke about 25,000 and are now down, I think, to a figure of 10,000.
Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the "Ark Royal"? Is it really intended to keep a carrier force of one aircraft carrier? What is the military usefulness of this, especially when it is now so old as to require a great deal of maintenance? What effect will this have on naval manpower? Will it mean having to put frigates into "mothballs"?
Does the Minister have the agreement of the Government of Nepal about the new plans which he has announced for the Brigade of Gurkhas? In the light of this miserable White Paper, the only pacific glory that the Government will see this week is the one which is aground off the Isle of Wight.

Lord Balniel: The figures used by the right hon. Member in his opening remarks indicate that he has been brainwashed by the speeches of his own side of the House. They are certainly not figures that were used from this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were used by the Prime Minister."]
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the costing of our defence budget targets. They are related to the commitments which we have in defence policy. The relationship of this to the gross national product depends upon the growth of the national product in the years ahead.
So far as savings have been achieved, they have been achieved primarily in three ways: first, by most careful scrutiny of the long-term costs; secondly, by the deferment of projects of lesser priority—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] As I explained in my statement, the major area is in building and equipment of an ancillary nature. [Interruption.] There is, however—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue by ejaculation.

Lord Balniel: —one major decision which affects the long-term costs, and that is the decision not to proceed with the idea of purchasing the C5, the American aircraft which could have been the successor to the Britannia, which, sooner or later, will have to be phased out or refurbished.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I should like to congratulate my noble Friend on taking the first step in restoring the Armed Forces to their proper position and, in particular, on his decision concerning the Brigade of Gurkhas. How many battalions does he hope now to have? Can he say whether the one-battalion group which it is intended to have in Singapore and Malaysia will be a Gurkha battalion, or whether the Gurkha battalion will be in addition to that, where it will be stationed and what level of strength the brigade will have?
Can my noble Friend say one last word concerning the equipment cuts which he intends to make? Will he make it clear that these cuts will have no bearing on the efficiency of any of the Armed Forces?

Lord Balniel: There are at present five Gurkha battalions. The exact number


of Gurkha battalions will depend upon consultations which we are having with the Sultan of Brunei. Their primary deployment will be in Hong Kong. One Gurkha battalion will be deployed in this country.

Dr. David Owen: Will the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in research and development costs for under-water weapons and that many people believe that this is the most serious gap in the forces? Will he also confirm that it was the previous Administration which began negotiations with the French on EXOCET, which is an expensive project?
Will he also say whether there will be any reduction in the modernisation of the Royal dockyards, which was also carefully costed by the previous Administration?

Lord Balniel: The decision to enter into negotiations with the French Government on EXOCET has been taken by the present Administration and was not taken by the previous Administration. There will be no cut in important research and development work undertaken on behalf of the Armed Forces, although there will be deferment—or, perhaps, alteration—of certain research and development of a subsidiary nature. Capital expenditure on the dockyards will be considered in the light of our plans for the future building of submarines.

Mr. Wall: While also congratulating my noble Friend on the proposals which he has announced so far, may I ask whether the figure of £2,300 million in 1974–75, which was mentioned yesterday, is a target or a firm pledge? Have we not had many examples during the past five years of the mistake of making firm pledges on defence expenditure five years ahead?
My noble Friend has not mentioned the Commando brigade, Commando carriers, and assault ships. Are these to be deployed east of Suez or in the Mediterranean?

Lord Balniel: The figures given in the Defence White Paper are defence budget targets and will be regarded as such, but they are targets which are related to our commitments. The deployment of commandos does not arise in the Defence

White Paper. It is not related to the cuts or the increase in expenditure.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister tells us that he is not cancelling any major projects, yet additional weapon buying has been listed. Does this mean that the total amount of money for equipment is going up, or is the Minister putting more in the shop window and deferring other priorities to the right?
Will the Minister tell the House that even if no agreement had been reached with the French Government on EXOCET a great deal of work had been done by the Ministry of Defence between the two navies on this important aspect?
Thirdly, does what the Minister has said about the Jaguar mean that at the end of the day the same number of aircraft will be involved, but that there will be more operational and fewer on training?

Lord Balniel: The point of the Jaguar rearrangements is that there will now be four more squadrons in the front line. Surely this is something which is very welcome to the Royal Air Force and will certainly be welcome to N.A.T.O.
The decision to enter into negotiations on EXOCET has been reached by the present Administration and was not taken by the previous Administration. The whole theme concerning equipment is to equip the forces so that the front line will be more effectively equipped than it is at present.

Sir F. Bennett: Can my noble Friend elaborate on the Gurkhas in South-East Asia? Is the consultation with the Sultan of Brunei, to which he has referred, concerning the number of Gurkhas or whether there are to be any there at all? I understand that there is general anxiety that the Gurkha battalion should stay there. Will the other Gurkha battalion be in Malaysia, or will the only battalion in that part of the world be in Singapore?
My noble Friend has not mentioned the jungle school in Malaysia.

Lord Balniel: As the discussions with the Sultan of Brunei are about to begin, it would be wrong for me to elaborate on this. The infantry battalion in Singapore will be a British infantry battalion.


The Gurkha battalions are more likely to be deployed in Hong Kong.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the Minister aware that his statement merely pays lip service to pre-election promises, that any force which goes east of Suez is irrelevant and that if there are any extra forces they should be placed in Europe, which is our vital defence area?
As to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, what makes the Minister think that he will get the recruits, having regard to the cock-eyed policy pursued by my party during the last few years, which made our reserve forces absolutely committed to reinforcing the regular forces, made it impossible for us to raise a reserve Army and committed us first of all to the use of nuclear weapons?

Lord Balniel: Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) about the Commonwealth jungle training centre. This matter is under negotiation at the moment.
I echo entirely the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) about the territorial reserves, but I believe that, in this country, there is an enormous reservoir of people who want to give voluntary service to the community. With the plans we will implement after discussion with the territorial associations, I am confident our initial objective of 10,000 members of the reserves will be met.

Captain W. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these measures will do much to repair the morale of the Services, which suffered so badly under the policies of the Labour Government, and as such will probably help in the recruiting process?
Is he aware that there will be a breath of relief throughout the Services that our obligations in Malaya will now be carried out by a joint treaty, with men on the ground, and not by the absurd proposition that we should reinforce that area from this country, with no base in Malaysia?
My right hon. Friend did not mention the Persian Gulf. Can he say anything about that?

Lord Balniel: I did refer to the Gulf. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows,

Sir William Luce has been commissioned to undertake a study of the situation in the Gulf. We have not yet received his recommendations.
I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said about the impact of the statement on the morale of the forces. I believe it is essential that the leaders of the country should make it clear to the country and the forces what an immensely important rôle we regard the forces as having to play in the defence of freedom. What was so sad was that the last Government notably failed to give that lead.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the necessity for a British presence east of Suez will remain a matter for acute disagreement. Since the Government have conceded the value of joint Commonwealth defence in the Far East, is there any reason why this should not be extended to cover the Indian Ocean, on the ground, first, that the security of the trade routes to the Far East is of vital importance to those countries, and, secondly, that it is logical to defend freedom in alliance with those who practise it?

Lord Balniel: There is a great deal with which I agree in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that there is a widening understanding throughout the countries of the Commonwealth of the importance of the Indian Ocean in relation to their own defence positions.

Dame Joan Vickers: Quite a number of newspapers, including the Sunday Times, have stated that the Royal dockyards are to be hived off. Can my noble Friend say what is to be the future of these dockyards?

Lord Balniel: There is no statement relating to them in the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Healey: While the noble Lord may have no difficulty in swindling his hon. Friends, what he has said will not bamboozle either the Services or our allies or partners in the Commonwealth. Is he aware that, for six years, he and his right hon. Friends have been saying that every reduction in manpower and money made by the previous Government was to put the security of the


nation at risk, but that he is now accepting the monetary and manpower targets set by that Government, not only for now but for four years' time?
Is the noble Lord further aware that, in addition to accepting manpower and financial targets which we previously rejected as putting the lives of our soldiers and the security of the country at risk, he is also accepting additional commitments without providing either the men or the money to carry them out?

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct—we inherited a very serious recruiting position, and I believe that the attitude of this Government, combined with other steps I hope to announce before too long, will make considerable improvements in recruiting for the forces. But when he refers to the targets, what he has an obligation to do is to explain to the House the immense disparity between the figures published in Cmnd. 4234 and the actual long-term costings of his own Administration.

Mr. Healey: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to start this process of education now, I point out that the figures in the White Paper on Public Expenditure last December were only £27 million lower than the figures for long-term costings for next year, and that the difference is more than met by the increased award made by the Committee on Service Salaries, which was made five months after the figures were published last December.
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is confusing, deliberately so to deceive his colleagues, the targets set by the previous Government, which are identical with the targets set by the present Government, with costing figures which bear no relation to the targets set.

Sir R. Cary: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this tirade from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in order?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) accused my right hon. Friend of deliberately seeking to deceive.

That implied a base motive and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the words "deliberately deceive". If the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) accused the Minister of deliberately deceiving his colleagues, he should with-draw it.

Mr. Healey: Whether any deliberation is possible for the right hon. Gentleman, I do not know, but the way in which he presented the figures today and in which the Chancellor presented them yesterday was inevitably liable to give the public, Parliament and his own colleagues a completely false impression of the facts.

Hon. Members: Now withdraw!

Lord Balniel: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn, but I am not prepared to press the point.

Mr. Healey: Very wise.

Lord Balniel: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to what I regarded as my courteous response to his failure to withdraw, he can pursue the matter further.
The figures are presented in the White Paper and they are there for all to read. What is needed is not the education of the House, but an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. Nabarro: While rejecting absolutely that I have been swindled either by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or by my noble Friend the Minister of State, I give a general welcome to the statement and I want to ask my right hon. Friend one specific question. My noble Friend referred to the retention of regimental names. Can he give some indication of the future of the Third Royal Green Jackets, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and of the Royal Hampshire Regiment? Two of them have been reduced to only 120 officers and men instead of being abolished completely—and it was preferable to retain them. Is it intended to expand those regiments to normal battalion strength during the next few years?

Lord Balniel: I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about one of the regiments concerned. There are Questions about other regiments on the


Order Paper and these will be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
These regiments were to have been disbanded altogether by the previous Administration. We have preserved their identity in representative companies with a real military rôle, and our intention is that, when the divisions of the infantry are recruited properly, as we hope they will be, these will be the first units to be expanded to full strength.

Mr. George Thomson: For once I fully agree with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Is the noble Lord aware that his proposals for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will be regarded as an insult to the Scottish people? Is he aware that to turn the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders into what is little more than a boy scout troop is not the saving the party opposite gave the impression that it was going to do?
May I, in addition, ask the Minister to tell us more frankly about the Persian Gulf? He has given firm defence targets here. He has said that no decisions have been taken about the Persian Gulf. Does this mean that the Government have decided to accept the withdrawal plans of this side of the House?

Lord Balniel: The answer to the latter part of the question is, "No, not at all". The answer to the former is that the previous Administration offered the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders the choice of amalgamation or disbandment. They chose to be disbanded under the previous Administration. We have retained them as a representative company and we look forward to the recruitment of the Scottish Division improving. When it has been proved to be fully manned we look forward to the day when the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will be re-created as a full major unit.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I welcome everything that the Minister has said, but at heart I feel that this issue is whether or not the decision that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders should continue was taken on military advice from the Chiefs of Staff or was taken as a political gesture.

Lord Balniel: It was taken by the Secretary of State for Defence as the best service which we could render the infantry units of the Scottish Division.

Mr. Richard: May I press the Minister a little on the question of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders? Can he give any indication of any independent rôle that he can see one company of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders performing?
May I ask one other question on the Army? Will he confirm that his party's much vaunted east of Suez policy, so far as the Army is concerned, comes down to about 600 men, and no more, permanently stationed in the Far East?
As to the Gurkhas, would he answer the question which he refused to answer earlier, namely, do the Government have the agreement of the Government of Nepal to these proposals which have been put forward for the Brigade of Gurkhas?

Lord Balniel: The Government of Nepal are aware of the proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Are they agreed?"] As to the future rôle of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, they will be an air portable company.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister elucidate further on the Jaguar programme? According to my arithmetic, there were 110 Jaguar S version ordered for the Royal Air Force, for strike and air support. There were about 90 of the Jaguar B ordered for Flying Training Command, or Training Command, as it is now called. If we add some four squadrons of the Jaguar S, which could be between 48 and 64 aircraft, that leaves a shortfall which my noble Friend has not mentioned to the House.
On another point, may I ask my noble Friend how he intends to make good the gap between 1972, which is the date when the Jaguar B was due to enter service, and 1975 or so, which is the date on which the new jet trainer or the Hawker 1182 would enter service?

Lord Balniel: Under the exsting understanding with the French, 200 aircraft will be produced for each country. We shall still need 200 Jaguars, but the majority will now be the operational version. The training rôle will be undertaken by a completely different aircraft.

Mr. Healey: What aircraft?

Lord Balniel: That is under consideration. We shall, in fact, need a few of the Jaguar training version for the operational conversion units. Their numbers will be very limited.

Mr. Richard: On a point of order. The Minister totally omitted—I am sure that it was not a deliberate omission—to answer a question I asked him. Would he not confirm that his party's east of Suez presence amounts to about 600 British soldiers?

Lord Balniel: Certainly not.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not clear that we shall now be deploying east of Suez a sufficient force to irritate our enemies but not enough to deter them or handle them if trouble comes? Is this not grossly irresponsible? If carrier support is needed in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic, is it not needed far more east of Suez?
Will the Minister therefore answer the question that I put to him earlier: what provision are the Government making for air cover for our shipping east of Suez, especially when out of range of land-based aircraft?

Lord Balniel: Our forces east of Suez are, of course, to be taken in conjunction with the full Commonwealth military presence there. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken if he believes that our proposals have not been warmly welcomed by the Commonwealth countries. As I said, H.M.S. "Ark Royal", which was due to be phased out, and on which the previous Administration have just spent £30 million on refitting, will be assigned to SACLANT, but she can be deployed into the Far East if that is considered operationally desirable.

Major-General James D'Ayigdor-Goldsmid: Will the Minister confirm that the expansion of the TAVR, which is extremely welcome, will be based on the cadres which exist today and will be carried on in the names of famous regiments—regiments whose names apparently caused derision on the other side of the House—and that these names will be kept in being?

Lord Balniel: I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend echoes a sentiment

which is very widely felt throughout the country. The exact arrangements for expanding the Volunteer Reserve will be discussed with the Territorial Associations themselves.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In his statement the Minister said that a detachment of Nimrod long-range aircraft whose base will be in this country—and they will be two—will be based in the Far East. Could he say what they are to do?

Lord Balniel: Their base will not be in this country.

Mr. Michael Stewart: May I press the Minister on the question of Nepal? He said, as if it were a matter of firm policy, that the Gurkhas were to be retained. Surely he could not say that unless he first secured the agreement of the Government of Nepal. Otherwise, he would be seriously misleading the House. Has he secured it or not?

Lord Balniel: As a previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know the arrangement which we have with the Government of Nepal. I think that it is grossly irresponsible—

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Grossly irresponsible.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It was certainly never the practice either of the Foreign Office or of the Ministry of Defence in the last Government to state to the House matters of firm policy that still required the agreement of foreign Governments and before that agreement had been achieved. If the Minister wished to keep this as a private matter for the present, he ought not to have stated it as a firm policy.
May I raise a point of order? It is this. On more than one occasion in his answers the Minister, instead of answering the point at issue, has seen fit to cast doubt on the good faith of my right hon. Friends and now of myself. I want to know whether this kind of procedure is the right way of treating the House.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order. It is a point of argument between the two sides of the House.

Lord Balniel: The recruitment of Gurkhas to the British Army is governed


by an agreement, of which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, between the Governments of India, Nepal and the United Kingdom. The Nepalese Government are aware of our plans.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

BILLS PRESENTED

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Terence L. Higgins, presented a Bill (under Standing Order No. 84 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) to make further provision with respect to the Civil Contingencies Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Anthony Grant, presented a Bill to raise the limits imposed by section 16(1) of the Air Corporations Act 1967 on borrowings by and investment in the British Overseas Airways Corporation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Corfield, Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Anthony Grant, presented a Bill to make declaratory provision with respect to such a

particular flight and series of flights as are mentioned in section 1(3) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 and with respect to the limitations which may be imposed by virtue of section 3(5) of the Air Corporations Act 1967: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Edward M. Taylor, presented a Bill to re-enact with modifications certain provisions relating to free education; to restore to education authorities the power to charge fees in a limited number of schools; to make provision in respect of fees to be charged for outwith-area pupils; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Mr. Terence L. Higgins presented a Bill to continue certain expiring laws: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL

Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Thomas, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mrs. Secretary Thatcher, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Paul Dean, and Mr. Michael Alison, presented a Bill (under Standing Order No. 84 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) to provide for the payment of a new benefit for certain families with small incomes; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ORDERS)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary to move the first Motion—and before, so I understand, I am addressed on a point of order—it may help the House if I explain that there are two courses which the House can take this afternoon. We can either have four separate debates on the four Orders, the subject of the Motions standing on the Order Paper, or we can have one general debate in which everything arising on any of the four can be canvassed and debated, with votes, if necessary, on each of the Orders at the end of that single debate.
This is a question for the House to decide. Do I take it that the House agrees that we have a single debate?

Mr. James Callaghan: I understand that there have been discussions through the usual channels, Mr. Speaker, and that agreement has been reached about it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): In our view, that is the right procedure. It is one that we have followed before.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order—

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend is probably on the same point, or a similar point. You will have noted, Sir, that there are over 20 Amendments set down to the proposed Motions, because hon. Members on both sides, apparently, wish to discuss their individual constituencies and the effect which the proposed Orders would have upon their constituencies. By way of a preliminary point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you intend to call any of the Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is probably right in suggesting that hon. Members will be interested in the fate of the Amendments which have been put down.
The position is this. The Amendments are not in order. It is not in order to amend Statutory Instruments proceeding

in pursuance to the Act of Parliament of 1949 with which we are here concerned, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act. The Instruments before us today may be approved or rejected, or withdrawn by the Minister. No other course is possible.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the appropriate provisions of the 1949 Act, an Act which we cannot discuss or amend this afternoon. It is Section 3 (4):
If any such draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall submit it to His Majesty in Council.
(5) If a motion for the approval of any such draft is rejected by either House of Parliament or withdrawn by leave of the House, the Secretary of State may amend the draft and lay the amended draft before Parliament, and if the draft as so amended is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall submit it to His Majesty in Council.
Thus, all we can do this afternoon is either reject or approve the four Orders, but we may advance as reasons for rejection or approval of them the points which are raised by the Amendments.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your careful answer to my question, which, if I may say so, was much as I had expected. But it puts the House in the difficulty that there may be large parts of an Order which are approved although, clearly, there will be individual sections disapproved of by individual Members and on which, if they had opportunity, they might be able to carry the House. The Government have put us in this position today by laying the Orders en bloc. [Laughter.] Yes, I am fully aware of all this.
I should like to be clear on the matter, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be possible, without any offence to the Act, for the Government to do what has been done on previous occasions—and about which there was complaint because I did not do it when they were in opposition—namely, lay these Orders individually, by counties, or in any other form which they choose so that the House may be free to take individual decisions on counties or constituencies?
Would you be good enough to confirm that that is so, Sir? I believe that it is, and, in that circumstance, if the


Government have chosen not to do it they have acted of their own free will and they are themselves denying the House this opportunity, although they complained bitterly that it was not given to them when they were in opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can rule only on matters of order. I cannot rule on the motives in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House. All I can say is that the proceedings on which we are about to embark are perfectly in order. We are carrying out a perfectly usual and normal procedure. I cannot rule on hypothetical questions.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not asking you to rule on the motives of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Far be it from me to suggest that you should peer into those murky depths. I was asking whether there is anything in the rules of the House which would prevent the Government from giving the House an opportunity to debate these questions. I take it that there is nothing, and, therefore, the Government must accept full responsibility for asking us to agree to these Orders, although they could have presented them in a different way, and a way which would give the House an opportunity to make Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the two Front Benches, not for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I accept, of course, the Ruling which you have given, but it appears that the House is put in an exceedingly unsatisfactory situation. May I put it to you, Sir, that one of the Amendments put down raises two substantial point of constitutional law: one, as to whether the recommendations presented to the Home Secretary are ultra vires as the Boundary Commission presented them; and two, as certain High Court proceedings, in which you, Mr. Speaker, were one of the defendants, were overridden by the presentation of the Boundary Commission's report, the only way, once the jurisdiction of the court has been ousted, by which the legality of the recommendations can be tested is in this House, but, if the Amendment is not to be called, it becomes impossible for the legality of the proposals to be considered in any forum whatsoever.
While I accept that the wording of the Act would appear to support the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is a highly unsatisfactory situation, and I implore you to find any solution you can to enable the matter to be discussed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has clearly expressed, first, the importance which he attaches to his Amendment, and second, his regret that Mr. Speaker cannot change the rules of order, or the parent Act of Parliament or the procedure on Statutory Instruments. I imagine that other hon. Members may share his regret, but nothing can be done about it.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, Sir, is that really so? Is it true that nothing can be done about it? I agree, if I may say so with respect, that, in the way the Orders have been presented, they have to be accepted or rejected en bloc, but the point I am putting, with respect, is that, despite what you have said, the Act does not require them to be presented en bloc, that bitter complaint was made on a previous occasion when they were presented en bloc, and that on other occasions they had been presented separately.
Although there may be nothing that can be done at this moment, is it not clear that the Government chose to do it in this way, although they could give the House a full opportunity of debating these matters separately by withdrawing the Orders as they now stand and relaying them in separate form?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order for the House either to reject the Orders or to accept them, or for the Government to withdraw them. No doubt, when we come to the argument on the Orders themselves, these points will be advanced as reasons why they should be rejected.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that, if the Labour Whips in the last Parliament had not killed my Amendment of Statutory Instruments Bill, they would have been able to amend Statutory Instruments, so that any complaint now about inability to amend comes very ill from right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

The Speaker: We know the hon. Gentleman's interest in the child which he lost in the House, but that is not a point of order.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved.
We shall debate at the same time, the three further Motions, as follows:
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved.
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969 in the last Parliament, be approved.
As my Motion makes clear, the draft Orders were laid in the last Parliament. The Motion differs only in one small particular from that moved by my predecessor on 12th November, 1969, the small particular being the omission of the word "not" before "approved". Therefore, I do not think that it is very easy for my predecessor to object to a procedure which follows so closely the admirable example he set us then.

Mr. Callaghan: The charge the Opposition made against me was precisely that I was presenting the orders en bloc, and that any decent Government should present them in a way in which they could be discussed individually. Why has the right hon. Gentleman now gone back on that, or was the opposition totally synthetic?

Mr. Maudling: I was merely pointing out that it was a little difficult for the right hon. Gentleman of all people in the country to complain about the procedure we are following.
The Motion is in exactly the same terms, apart from the omission of the word "not". The effect is to carry out in full the recommendations of the impartial Boundary Commissions. I stress the word "impartial". It is enormously important. There is a very strong case in all the circumstances for

accepting in full the recommendations of a body seen and known to be impartial. We must recognise in the House that any appearance of the Government of the day apparently picking and choosing between individual recommendations is bound to lead to suspicion. That, on this particular occasion, is especially important in view of the very unhappy circumstances that surrounded the issue in the previous Parliament. It is of the utmost importance to restore and retain public faith in the impartiality of Parliament as a whole and of individual Members of Parliament in matters touching upon electoral advantage.
We are a parliamentary democracy, but in practice our form of democracy really means the dictatorship for the time being of the party that holds a majority in this House. This form of democracy, I think the best in the world, is tolerable only so long as the electorate as a whole believes that those who are given power, who are granted a majority, get it on a fair and honourable basis. That is why it is fundamentally important that the public should be convinced, and have clear evidence, that an impartial review of the constituency boundaries should not be varied at all for reasons which might appear to be partial in any particular. That is why, in the Government's view, we are concerned with a matter of major principle. We made quite clear our intention to do what we are doing this afternoon, and we certainly have the support of the people of the country, before whom we put our intention at the last General Election.
If the draft Orders are approved in both Houses, as I hope they will be, I shall submit them to Her Majesty in Council, and they will subsequently come into force in 14 days, but they will be effective only for the next General Election. By-elections in the meanwhile will not be affected by the new Orders. This is standard constitutional practice, laid down by the Act.
The reports of the four Boundary Commissions are the result of their second periodic general review—the first since 1954. They are the outcome of four years' hard work, and I know that both sides of the House will wish me, like my predecessor, to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your fellow Members and your assistant Commissioners, for the pains


you took in your deliberations, for the meticulous care taken in conducting inquiries, and for the admirably detailed way in which the Commissions' recommendations have been explained. These explanations are far fuller than was generally the case in the 1954 reports, and for this the House is grateful.
I should briefly explain the effect of the Orders, although no doubt they are well known to most hon. Members. Article 2 of each Order substitutes the constituencies described in Part II of the Schedule for those described in Part I. Unless otherwise stated, the constituencies in Part II are described by reference to the circumstances of 1st January, 1969. Certain changes in local government boundaries—mostly minor changes—have, of course, occurred since then. It is difficult for any Order of this kind ever to be completely up to date, but this time the changes are rather more numerous than usual, because of the time which has elapsed since the Commissions reported and the draft Orders were laid.
I regret this, but it is another consequence of the rather unusual parliamentary proceedings in the previous Parliament. The Commissions have, of course, power to submit interim reports, and I have no doubt they will consider the need to do so in appropriate cases, to take account of the changes already made and of any other boundary adjustments which may be made before local government reorganisation. I shall say more about this later.
Between them, the four Orders provide for major alterations in 322 out of 630 constituencies, and for minor alterations in a further 88. The draft Order relating to Northern Ireland affects eight of the 12 constituencies, notably South Antrim and North Down, which will be considerably reduced in size. South Antrim is now the largest constituency in the United Kingdom, with over 144,000 electors. Here let me remind the House—since someone is sure to raise it—that the Rules for Redistribution fix the number of Northern Ireland consituencies at 12. This is rather fewer in proportion to population than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The reason for this is the view which was taken when the Government of Ireland

Act was passed in 1920, that, having its own Parliament, Northern Ireland did not need representation at Westminster on the same scale as England, Wales and Scotland. I am sure the House will agree that, if there were to be any reappraisal of this, it could best be made in the context of the report of the Commission on the Constitution.
The draft Order for Wales makes few changes. The number of constituencies remains at 36, and there are major alterations in seven of these—all in South Wales.
The draft Order for England makes major alterations in 271 constituencies, and minor alterations in a further 75. In addition, there are to be five new constituencies, bringing the English total to 516.
This total of 516 is, in fact, still rather less than the number of seats to which England would be entitled by electorate, by comparison with Scotland and Wales. Even with the five new seats, the average constituency electorate in England will be 9,000 more than in Wales and 12,000 more than in Scotland. Sixteen English counties will have one or two more seats, and four will have one or two fewer. Greater London, which now has 99 constituencies and the major part of four more, will have 92.
Now let us look at the effect of these changes in terms of adjustments where they are most needed—adjustments to the largest constituencies and to the smallest. The electoral quota which the Commissions were required by their rules to take into account was that of 1965. And the quota for England—that is the total electorate divided by the existing number of constituencies—in 1965 was 58,759. That was the average constituency electorate. But the Commission's work lasted for four years, and by 1968 the electoral quota had risen to 59,825.
Some constituencies were growing fast, and in others the electorate was declining. In certain borderline cases where the 1968 figures confirmed an existing trend, the Commission took account of such changes, and there is of course nothing in their rules which says they must not do so. What the rules say is that
the electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules.


It is for the Commission to decide what is practicable.
Up to 1969 the electoral quota rose, with the normal growth of population, by a few hundred a year. But in 1970, with the lowering of the voting age to 18, the quota jumped by several thousand to 64,502. We must bear this in mind in looking at the size of the new constituencies. The Commissions aimed at electorates of between 40,000 and 80,000. In terms of 1970 electorates, with this increase this aim would have been, say, 45,000 to 85,000, and no fewer than 496 of the 516 new English constituencies are, in fact, within this range. Only 10 are smaller and only 10 are larger.
To bring up to date the figures in Appendix C of the reports of the Boundary Commissions, I have placed in the Library of the House tables showing the 1970 electorates of all the new constituencies constituted by the draft Orders.
Those are briefly the details of the effect of the Orders. I do not think that anyone would now need to be persuaded about the necessity for change. The present distribution of constituencies is based on the situation in 1954–16 years ago. It is clearly time for a change, and we can see this illustrated in some of the constituencies. For example, Portsmouth, Langstone has 113,000 electors, Billericay 124,000 and Epping 116,000, while Birmingham, Ladywood has only 18,000, Glasgow, Kelvingrove 19,000, and Orkney and Shetland 25,000. The possibility of this unacceptable discrepancy in the size of constituencies was recognised by Parliament when it provided for an impartial review at intervals of a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 15 years.
It seems to me that there are only two possible arguments against passing the Orders today. The first might be that some detailed changes are wrong or have been overtaken by time, and the second that there will have to be another review after the reform of local government which is foreseen.
I should like to deal with those two points. First, as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, obviously individual constituencies can and will be raised in the course of debate as illustrations of the principle we are discussing. But the Commissions

took very great care in the work they did. The job they have to do, and the rules by which they must work, require a constant process of judgment and compromise, a constant awareness of local circumstances, and a constant readiness to modify their views and their provisional recommendations in response to soundly-based local representations. I believe that the recommendations of the Commissions and the number of local inquiries they held—10 times the number held in 1954—are witness to the great care which the Commissions gave to their task.
I hope that these considerations will help those hon. Members—and I know that there are several—who are unhappy about particular recommendations, to accept them as a fair outcome, a fair answer to a series of complex and interrelated problems, and a fair reconciliation of widely differing views and interests.
But, above all, the Government attach great importance to accepting these impartial reports in full as a token of the determination of the House to make quite clear that there will always be impartiality in the electoral arrangements in this country.

Mr. William Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a rather dangerous practice if any Commission appointed by the House to investigate a problem, whether constitutional or otherwise, is to do so on the understanding that what it recommends will be implemented without any discussion or amendment by the House?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman has not quite taken my point, which is that the recommendations of these Commissions affect both political parties and individual M.P.s. Therefore, in these circumstances there is a quite exceptional need to ensure that impartiality is observed, and openly observed. It is a very special case, and a very strong constitutional argument.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Whilst I accept all that the Home Secretary has said, can he give any logical reason why the people he has mentioned, such as political parties, M.P.s and local people, who know local circumstances better than other people cannot suggest an improvement in the name of a constituency, even though that would mean no change in the proposals?

Mr. Maudling: I know that there are arguments about names. The question of name affected my own constituency. By sheer coincidence we got what we wanted, which meant that others did not get what they wanted. Where there are disputes, as there can be in these important matters, I say once again that it is right for the decision to be taken by an impartial body, and is in accordance with our traditions.

Mr. Roland Moyle: On a point of order. The Home Secretary is presenting an argument which the House will agree is complex. We are all trying to follow it closely, but the right hon. Gentleman said that the list of 1970 electorates has been placed in the Library. This is not so. I have just been to the Library to endeavour to obtain a copy of this document. It is not there. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how hon. Members on this side of the House at least, if not hon. Members generally, can follow this complex argument in the absence of this vital document?
Further, another document which is essential if we are to be able to follow the debate and which the Government should have provided is the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, but it is impossible to obtain copies of this Act from the Vote Office. Again, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the House follow the Home Secretary's complex argument in the absence of these essential documents? Will you ensure that the Government provide these documents for the consideration of the House, so that hon. Members can follow the Home Secretary's argument?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Strictly speaking, these are not matters of order for the Chair. I am sure that the Home Secretary would be under the complete understanding that these documents are available and that, if they are not available, it would not be his fault, and that he will do all he can to ensure that they are available.

Mr. Maudling: On the question of the interim review provisions, which I think is of interest to a number of hon. Members, there is provision for interim reviews to be made in particular circumstances—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that in representing Mr. Speaker, as you do in that Chair, you are in charge of the Library. In so far as you have that authority and there is something essential to the debate which is required, I believe that the point of order which was addressed to you was in order. I was wondering whether the Home Secretary can say whether he can meet the requirements of this debate by enabling the Library to satisfy that which seems to be necessary for the further continuance of this debate.

Mr. Maudling: I understood that the document had been placed in the Library. I am checking on that. If it has not been, the omission will be repaired imemdiately. If I had not mentioned these figures in the first place, nobody would have asked for them.

Mr. Moyle: I had intended to go to the Library to ascertain whether this information was available at the start of the debate. I think that the Home Secretary should withdraw that imputation.

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman were interested in my speech, he might have gone a little earlier to see whether the information was available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. You may recollect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a recent case when papers and documents which should have been available for Members were not available and Mr. Speaker then, very kindly and helpfully, arranged for those documents to be Roneoed. With the help of the staff of the House and the Clerk, Roneoed copies were provided and, no doubt with the help of the Government at that time, they were circulated to all Members.
As I understand, there is not one of these documents available. I am more concerned that hon. Members on the Government side should have these papers and documents. I suggest that it is the usual custom and practice of the Chair to ensure that hon. Members can and do have these documents. I did not know that there was such a document until the Home Secretary mentioned it. If there are such documents, all hon. Members should have copies.
Whilst I have been speaking I see that the Home Secretary, very fortunately, no doubt because he is the Home Secretary, has been supplied with a copy. I should like to know why the Home Secretary, as an ordinary Member of the House, is getting preferential treatment over myself; because I, too, am a Member of Parliament and I, too, am entitled to have a copy. I see that the Home Secretary is sending his P.P.S. all round the place to get copies for the Government Front Bench. May I request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you ask the P.P.S. to obtain copies for myself and all other hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was seized of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. What Mr. Speaker did on that occasion was not quite the same as this. This is not strictly a point of order. Nevertheless, I am sure that the word will go forth to the Librarian now to help in every possible way and I am sure that the Home Secretary will do all that he can to help. It is not strictly speaking a point of order, not the same as that on which Mr. Speaker ruled.

Mr. Dick Leonard: On a point of order. In view of the crucial importance of these documents to enable the House to give proper consideration to this matter, may I suggest that the House adjourn for an hour until they are available for Members in the Library?

Mr. Maudling: I think that there has been some misunderstanding, because I have here the letter which covered the delivery of the documents to the Library some days ago. There must be some misunderstanding in the Library. I quote from the letter the Home Office sent:
I am also enclosing certain unpublished tables … of the proposed new constituencies for the use of Members.
So far as I know, that has been carried out and the information that I wanted Members to have has been despatched.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. I do not think that any of us are particularly concerned to ascribe blame as between the Home Secretary and the Library. What we want is a document which is germane. It is one of the points which is relevant to my speech. We want to see what the up-to-date position is.
Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you be willing to accept the Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) was willing to move, namely, that the debate be adjourned for, say, 30 minutes, to enable the Library to find the document or, alternatively, to enable the Home Office to provide the Library with more documents so that we can have the document before us?
After all, the Home Secretary has quoted from the document. I will not belabour the hon. Gentleman with the rules of order about whether his speech is in order if he quotes from a document which is not before us. I endeavoured beforehand to get details of the 1970 electorates—not from the Library, but by my own researches. I was not able to do so very successfully. It would be valuable if we could see these figures. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford had a case in asking that the debate be adjourned for a short time.

Mr. Maudling: I think that I can now help the House. I have received further information. The information was placed in the Library two weeks ago. When approached by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) the Librarian thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to the "Electronics Order". These copies will now be found to be available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. We have all enjoyed the Home Secretary's electronic joke, but I am not concerned about whether there was or is a document that has been laid. The Home Secretary said that copies are available. There may be a copy in the Library, but I do not believe that 500 copies are available for hon. Members. Our usual custom and practice is to go to the Vote Office and obtain, if necessary, one for ourselves and, as I often do, a supply for hon. Members on both sides. I want to be assured that I can go to the Library and obtain 100 or 150 copies of this document.
I am not concerned whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said "electronic" or "election". I trust his word implicitly and I am sure he is right in saying that there are not 500 copies available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear to the House that these are not points of order. These are questions of arrangements by the Government and what they can best do in the interests of the House. There is nothing that I can do, in the sense of a direction on a point of order, to help the hon. Gentleman. What I can and will do is to look into the circumstances of what has happened and, if there has been any slip-up by the Library or, indeed, by anybody else. I will do everything that I can to rectify it. There is nothing I can do here and now. So I ask the House to let the matter rest there now and let the Home Secretary proceed with his speech.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order and with great deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that this matter could be a point of order in so far as the document has not been produced to the House and laid on the Table. The question whether the document is in the Library does not answer this. I quote from page 458 of the current edition of Erskine May:
Another rule or principle of debate may be here added. A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table.
If that is correct, I submit that this therefore becomes a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am still of the same opinion as I was before, that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not particularly germane to this case. I therefore rule that it is not a point of order and I call the Home Secretary to continue his speech.

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the difficult situation you are in, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you understand that we as Members of the House are in a difficult situation, too. Therefore, may I, through you, appeal to the Home Secretary to help the House and to help you in your difficult situation by agreeing to the proposal that we should suspend the debate for at least half an hour to enable hon. Members to sort this matter out and read the document for themselves, thereby relieving

you of a difficult situation and satisfying the will of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary is not under the rules of order able to decide that question. I have to decide that question on the strength of what I think is right. I rule that the House should not be adjourned and that the Home Secretary do continue his speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that we all accept that Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say, further to the point of order, that I have now been given one copy of this statement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why has my right hon. Friend been so honoured?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a very good question, and I was about to spring to my hon. Friend's defence. Apparently, there are two copies available, one of which I have been fortunate enough to obtain and the second of which must not be taken from the Library. As I cast my eye over this document I see that it throws up important considerations.
I am submitting this on a point of order to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to why hon. Members should have these figures. I beg you to believe that this is a serious point of order. The constituency of Gateshead is almost the first one on which my eye alights. The 1965 figures for the two constituencies of Gateshead were 52,000 and 40,000, in reasonable equality. In 1970 Gateshead, East has risen to 62,000 and Gateshead, West dropped to 34,000 The House might feel much more deeply than it does now even about the need to discuss the Orders individually if there are other such illustrations where, within the space of five years, on the basis of the figures that are now in the Library, such a discrepancy can occur.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it could well influence the way in which hon. Members decide on this issue, whether you will not seriously consider the not unreasonable suggestion that for the space of 30 minutes the House should adjourn. Let us have these documents duplicated and then other hon. Members—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman says "No". He does not know what is happening in his


own constituency until he sees the document. He might find himself legislated out of existence before he knows where he is.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order. May I make it clear that it was on 20th October that this information and a lot more was made available to hon. Members by placing it in the Library. If hon. Members had wanted this information, all that they had to do was ask for it from the Library or the Home Office on any day since then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We come back to what I have said already. These are not points of order. I must ask the House to accept that and now to allow the Home Secretary to continue his speech. When I say that there is nothing that I can do, I mean it.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order. I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact that this information is not available to the House because of the laziness and dereliction of duty of the Home Office. In July, I put down a Question to the Home Secretary asking for this information. Instead of its being provided—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. What an hon. Member puts down in a Question to the Home Secretary is no business of the Chair. I cannot accept that as a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you advise me about my rights as an ordinary back bench hon. Member? It may be that, inadvertently, of course, the Home Secretary is not giving full details to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would never mislead the House, but I might think that he was. If I am not allowed a copy of the document, how can I pull him up and say that I believe that in the case of my constituency he is not giving all the facts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can do to help the hon. Gentleman. With his parliamentary experience, no doubt he will think of a way in which he can come back on the Home Secretary later. There is nothing

that I can do to help him or any other hon. Member at the moment.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order. I would ask you sincerely whether an hon. Member's contribution to the debate can be effective, whatever the weight of parliamentary experience behind it, when the full facts in terms of numbers and electorates are not before the House. As the biggest alteration in the franchise since 1928 has occurred subsequent to the time that the Orders were laid before the House, ought not the facts have been made known to the House that in 1968—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order in putting this to me. There is nothing that the Chair can do. These are matters which are entirely for the Government to do what they think best in the interests of the House as a whole. It is not for the Chair to rule upon this point. We have had a long discussion on it and, having tried to satisfy hon. Members as far as I can, I really must ask the House to allow the Home Secretary to continue his speech.

Mr. Molloy: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had a number of exchanges, you have been very patient, and we appreciate that. However, after all these points of order and exchanges and in spite of your patience, we have resolved nothing. The House is extremely disturbed. The original appeal was designed to help you, the House, and hon. Members on both sides.
In my view, the Home Secretary should agree to a suspension so as to allow the matter to be resolved properly. That would remove the embarrassment which you, obviously, are suffering and which hon. Members on both sides are suffering. It is the only way to help the House, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be big enough to agree to it.

Mr. Maudling: It is clear now that the first report that we had that the documents were not available was based on a misapprehension. In fact, I took the deliberate choice of making all the information available to the House more than a week ago, by the normal methods.

Mr. Callaghan: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I only wish that the House had known it earlier. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you have done your best to help the House. If you will accept a delaying Motion, I think that we should now proceed. Of course, if the Home Secretary cared to read the document, that would save a lot of trouble, but it would extend his speech.

Mr. Maudling: I suspect that my speech would get almost as long as some of the totals of constituency numbers if I did.
I want to deal with the important point about interim reviews. There is a power resting with the Boundary Commission to make interim reviews of particular situations in between general reviews. It is important to have this in mind because it affects certain constituencies, and it would be especially relevant where rewarding is taking place. This would be on the initiative of the Commission and not that of the Home Office. When reconstituted, obviously the Commission will take note of anything said in this debate. The provision of the Act is that the Commission can take the initiative in interim reappraisals if it thinks fit.
I remind the House of the main argument. It is the same argument as that raised on previous occasions, namely, that another review will be needed when the local government reorganisation has been carried through. I am afraid that this argument does not stand up now any more than we thought that it did a year ago.
The last General Election was fought on the 1954 boundaries. It is quite unacceptable that the next General Election should be fought on the same boundaries. They are already 16 years out of date, and they will be more out of date when the next General Election comes. However, that would be the position if these Orders were not passed: the next General Election would be fought once again on boundaries which were settled 16 years ago.
It is likely to be 1978 or 1979 before a complete new review becomes available. I think that the minimum period is 10 years and, by the Statute, it would not be available until 1979, anyway. In practical terms, the Commission cannot start

on a definitive review of the new boundaries until new legislation relating to local government has been passed and until new local government boundaries have subsequently been settled. Anything else acting before that would be just another interim review.
A definitive review will not take place until local government legislation has been passed and local government boundaries have been settled. After that, the work of the Commission will take three or four years to complete.
In other words, unless we pass these Orders, we shall not be able to have a General Election in this country on anything other than the 1954 boundaries within the next six, seven and possibly eight years. I do not think that that is a situation which is acceptable.
As the House knows, we do not intend to hold back on local government reform. We intend in due course to put comprehensive proposals before the House. But they will take a long time to work out. They will take a long time to pass this House. There will be much controversy on local government reform, often cutting across parties. There will then have to be the detailed working out of local government boundaries. It is not right to await that process before bringing constituencies, upon which Parliament is determined and democracy depends, more in line with the circumstances of the present day than those of 1954.
That is my case for asking the House to pass these Orders. They are the recommendation of an impartial body. It is particularly important on this occasion, after the history of the last year or so, that the House should be seen to accept wholeheartedly an impartial recommendation. If we do not, we shall proceed to a situation where the next General Election, like the last, is fought on boundaries which are not the right boundaries.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were troubled with the point raised, which we regard as a material one. I thank you for your good humour and courtesy in dealing with it, even though you did not meet our wishes. However, we felt that it was a point of some substance. When one realises the rapid way in which constituency figures can move,


it is important that the House should have up-to-date figures.
This is part of my case for saying that the Home Secretary has very much overstated his position. I would not accept, nor would my right hon. and hon. Friends, nor indeed would many hon. Gentlemen opposite, that because we have had recommendations from an impartial body we must accept them whole-heartedly. That was the proposition the Home Secretary rested upon.
I say this for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that these recommendations can be rendered stale and out of date by the passage of population and its movement. We have in our wisdom, and I was party to it, introduced a new system which has now been brought into force for the first time as to the way in which the Boundary Commissioners should operate. It is a system that requires them to be extremely painstaking, careful and, by definition, very lengthy in the way in which they conduct their reviews and put forward their recommendations.
It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to say that I am responsible for the fact that the recommendations have taken so long to get through. I am not here to ascribe responsibility, but it is a fact that it is now nearly six years since the Commission began to consider the recommendations to which we are asked to agree this afternoon. During this time a great deal has happened, with many movements of population. This is a new factor.
The 1954 Review took only 15 months to complete and we then had a review presented to Parliament freshly-minted. We are now getting a review which, as the Commissioners properly say, was started five years ago. I do not blame them for this since we asked them to follow this procedure. Therefore, it is the more necessary that we should not accept the proposition that, because an impartial body has considered the matter, the House must wholeheartedly accept it.
Every one of my predecessors at the Home Office took the view that Parliament must be supreme in this matter. I believe that proposition to be even more necessary because of the lapse of time since the beginning of the Commissioners' consideration to the end of such consideration.
What has happened to stretch out the procedure over such a long period? First of all, the Commissioners issued their provisional recommendations. They reviewed the matter, decided what they thought it was right to do and then considered representations made in writing. If they thought those representations were of sufficient merit, they held a local inquiry. Those local inquiries occasionally took up a good deal of time and effort, and as a result of such an inquiry they then published their further recommendations which may or may not have been different from the original recommendations.
In a number of cases further representations were made and, because the Commissioners were doing their best to be impartial and to show that they were trying to get the right answer, in some cases they held second inquiries which were followed by a second batch of recommendations. Therefore, inevitably a long period elapsed between the time when the Commission set about their task and the time when Parliament came to consider the results of their efforts.
For that reason it is not good enough, when the Home Secretary wants to make changes, for him to present these Orders in such a way that they cannot be dissected, either county by county or individually, because circumstances in particular counties or in individual constituencies may well have changed. I have given one illustration this afternoon.

Mr. Maudling: I did not present the Order originally. The right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary did.

Mr. Callaghan: The Home Secretary wishes to ride off on a technicality. He is not very good at technicalities. He is the sort of man who is much better at dealing with the real position. This point is too synthetic. We have already established that it was open to the right hon. Gentleman to present the Orders in any way he wanted.

Mr. Maudling: Or to follow the right hon. Gentleman's example.

Mr. Callaghan: Or to follow my example, and I will come back later to what the Prime Minister said about the way I did this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would listen to this with relish, since I do not know what the


relations are between the right hon. Gentlemen.
The fact is that the Home Secretary is asking that new boundaries should be established and that changes should be made. But since there has been a lapse of time of six years since the Commission began its work, I feel that he should have considered, and I doubt whether he has, presenting these Orders in such a way that Amendments could have been tabled so that the House could have decided upon them straight away.
I would point out that there were about 70 local inquiries in England alone, affecting upwards of 200 constituencies. It meant that there were many objections to the Commissioners' recommendations and, with respect, it would take the wisdom of Solomon for the Commission to succeed in satisfying everybody. But to my mind that is another reason why the House should be enabled to examine in detail the Commission's recommendation. So many of these matters turn on fine points of judgment. It is not good enough, as all the previous Home Secretaries accepted as a proposition that, having handed the matter over to the Parliamentary Commissioners, Parliament should abdicate its responsibilities and vote in the recommendations without any opportunity to debate individual cases and to take a decision on them.
This redistribution is the biggest undertaken since 1832. Three hundred and thirty-two major changes, not minor ones, were made in the complexion of constituencies. Therefore, it was more than ever desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity of voting on the individual and particular proposals.
Let me give some examples. I will give three in Greater London. In Ealing, where at the moment there are four seats, the Commissioners propose a reduction to three. There were, of course, objections to this proposal, as was natural, and the Commission held an inquiry. The Assistant Commissioner, after an inquiry, proposed different boundaries for the constituencies and gave his reasons in some detail. The Commissioners did not accept the Assistant Commissioner's report. Therefore, there is a difference of opinion between the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioner

who actually held the inquiry and heard the evidence given before it.
One argument which has been advanced and to which the Commissioner referred is the fact that there has been a large influx of immigrants into the area. Nobody in this House would take the view, or at least I hope they will not take the view, that immigrants should be disfranchised. Since this influx has happened during the last two or three years this is all the more reason that the House should have the opportunity of considering the Ealing cases separately and deciding whether they agree with the Commissioners or with the Assistant Commissioner.
This very illustration, in my view, destroys the Home Secretary's dictum that, because this is an impartial inquiry, we must accept it wholeheartedly. Which are we to accept: the Assistant Commissioner or the Commission? Why should we be asked to accept the Commission rather than the Assistant Commissioner who held the inquiry? I am not saying that the Commission is wrong. I do not know enough about this case. I am saying that there was a clear division of opinion between impartial gentlemen who considered this matter. Therefore, it is the case, and my very strong view, that the House should be supreme and that the Members concerned should have an opportunity of bringing their cases in detail before the House—not, in the throwaway words of the Home Secretary, as an illustration. These constituencies are now to be taken out of circulation; they are to be destroyed. It is not a case of illustrating a general argument by reference to a particular constituency. The hon. Members concerned should have the opportunity of voting on their issue.

Mr. Molloy: In support of the argument of the Assistant Commissioner being in conflict with the Commission, there is also this point to be considered. I put to my right hon. Friend that, in the instance of the London Borough of Ealing, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, as political parties, the Conservative councillors and Labour councillors on the Borough Council are at one in their opposition to the recommendations of the Commission and the Assistant Commissioner that there should be four constituencies. If we could have a


thorough debate in the House we could reflect the views of the political parties in the London Borough of Ealing who have an intimate knowledge of the situation and whose views should be represented.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: It will take two days to do that.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman says that it will take two days to do that. That may be so. Why not? Or is it that, because it will take so much time, we cannot afford to spend time debating this kind of issue? The hon. Gentleman will probably have an opportunity to debate this point later. I selected Ealing because, when I was Home Secretary, I had joint representations from the Conservative and Labour Parties about the effect of these changes. All I am saying is that, right or wrong, it is not sufficient to say that they can be brushed aside and that we must decide the whole lot in one. In my view, the Home Secretary has made a grave mistake by putting us in the position that we either accept or reject the lot.

Mr. Onslow: Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I turn to the question of Hounslow.

Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No. Well, all right.

Mr. Onslow: I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the gracious manner of his giving way. Last time we were put in the same position of having to reject or accept them all.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into a trap. I shall be glad to dig him out when I come to that part of my speech. I hope that he will stay to listen to it. I am sure that he will stay to listen. I cannot carry it any further.
I turn to Hounslow. The Commission has proposed a reduction from three to two seats. Here, again, there were objections. Here, again, the Assistant Commissioner held a local inquiry. Here, again, he considered that housing development would cause the two constituencies to grow unreasonably large. What did the Commission say? It said that it thought there was a lot in the view of the Assistant Commissioner; it

had to stand by its view; but Hounslow—here I quote—
… still had the best claim of any London Borough to an additional seat".
Do not hon. Members on both sides consider that this is a matter which should be within the decision of the House? It is not a question whether we have had an impartial body considering it. We have had more than one impartial body considering it. Here is an issue on which there was a difference of opinion and on which the House should be supreme. The Home Secretary should have brought forward these Orders in a manner which would have enabled us to take these individual decisions.
I turn to Kensington and Chelsea. The Commissioners originally proposed three seats, as at present. They were impartial gentlemen doing their best. I mean this quite sincerely. I am not "taking the mickey" out of anybody. I think that they had a most difficult job. They were doing their best, but I will illustrate the difficulties that they and we are up against.
In Kensington and Chelsea the Commissioners originally proposed that the existing number of seats—three—should be continued. There was no inquiry. Naturally, everybody was happy and satisfied because they were keeping the same number of seats. Later, for reasons unrelated to Kensington and Chelsea, the Commission came out with a second proposal—to reduce the number of seats in Kensington and Chelsea from three to two. The reasons—I ask hon. Gentlemen to remember what I said about Hounslow—were:
… we considered that we would not be justified in allocating more seats to Kensington and Chelsea than to Hounslow.
It was not a question whether Kensington and Chelsea should have three seats on their merits. Because the Commission had taken the decision, against the Assistant Commissioner's view, that Hounslow should have three seats, it said that it was forced to the position where it must reduce Kensington and Chelsea from three to two. Is this the kind of issue on which we have to wholeheartedly—I use the Home Secretary's word—back the Commission in its impartial judgment? Or it is that there are five issues to be debated and decided, that this House should be supreme, and should have been given that opportunity?

Mr. William Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that hon. Members wish to make their own cases. I have a number of illustrations to give. I should like to pursue my own course, because I believe that I can bring out the point as admirably as I want to bring it out. I have not finished on this point.
Having so decided there was then trouble, and an inquiry was held in Kensington and Chelsea. What did the Assistant Commissioner say? Despite what the Commissioners had said, he said: "You Commissioners are wrong. I think that there should be three seats in Kensington and Chelsea, not two, no matter what you Commissioners say. You originally thought three seats. You changed your minds and reduced them to two seats. I, the Assistant Commissioner, have heard the evidence at the inquiry and I think that there should be three seats."
The Commissioners rejected the Assistant Commissioner's inquiry. They said:
… we could neither give special treatment to one London Borough nor make recommendations based on the population of an area rather than its registered electorate.
It may be that the Commission could not, but the House, if the Home Secretary had given us the opportunity, could have done. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to give us this opportunity.
I turn to the Cities of London and Westminster. The boundary between the constituencies of St. Marylebone and Paddington has been a matter of great dispute over a long period. There was an official inquiry. There were a number of representations. The Commissioners then modified their original recommendations. With what result? That the electorate for Paddington is now 68,000 plus and for St. Marylebone only 46,000. They altered what was a relative equality to a great disparity in treatment to the disquiet of a large number of people. Should not the House have the opportunity of deciding whether the Commission—this impartial body—was right the first or second time?
Havering. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) has an Amendment down about Havering. I have no doubt that he will try to catch

your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Consider what has happened in Havering not only in relation to the difference in the proposals but also to the length of time which has elapsed and see whether I have established my first point.
In 1965 the Commission came out with its first proposals. Objection was taken and there was a local inquiry. In June, 1966, a year later, there was a second set of proposals. Objection was taken and there were further representations. In March, 1967, came the third modified proposal. There were then objections by the Conservative Party. A second local inquiry was held in October, 1967. Then, on 3rd April, 1968, a further set of proposals came from the Commission.
I do not think that the Home Secretary has studied this matter. Is he saying that where the Commission has produced four different sets of proposals we should wholeheartedly support the impartial decision of this inquiry? Which one? The first, second, third or fourth? They were all honourable men doing their best. This is why the House should have been given the opportunity and why the Home Secretary has failed us today.
There are similar difficulties in the provinces. Cornwall and Cumberland suffered a reduction of one seat each in the provisional recommendations. This was restored in the final report. Good for Cornwall and Cumberland. But what happened? To accommodate Cornwall and Cumberland, Bradford was reduced by one seat. That is why the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) raised a point of order this afternoon. Does the House think that it is not within the competence of hon. Members sitting here to consider whether the right judgment is that Cornwall should get one seat more if the price is that Bradford has to get one seat less? I do not pronounce on this issue, but I say that when these are such fine issues of judgment it is for the House to reach a conclusion, and that is being denied us by the attitude of the Home Secretary this afternoon.
I could give a number of other illustrations. Leicester was one where the Commission differed from the Assistant Commissioner. In Bedfordshire there was a great controversy over the Luton boundaries. Mr. Will Howie discussed the matter with me at an earlier stage before he lost his seat. I do not know


whether there are still great controversies over that issue, but, whether there are or not, the Assistant Commissioner in his report said that
the arguments for our recommendations and for the counter proposals were finely balanced.
Which of the two impartial inquiries are we supposed to back in this case? Surely, when the issues are "finely balanced", here is a case on which the House should have the opportunity of adjudicating?
Durham is another example. The elimination of Sedgefield has caused a great deal of controversy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) has sent me a detailed statement of the case. I could cite Norfolk, Walsall, West Bromwich, Cannock, Lichfield and the Rhondda. I could go on with a number of other cases, if I were not trespassing too much on the patience of the House, to illustrate where the Commission had the greatest difficulty—perhaps not in the case of the Rhondda—and yet the House is being denied the opportunity to consider the proposals. I am sure, as the Home Secretary said, that the Commissioners took all these matters into account. I am sure that they carried out their duties with great care, but we should have been given the opportunity to debate their proposals.
I come to what has happened previously, because I want the House to understand that irrespective of what has been said today this is the first time that this procedure has been followed. When Major Gwilym Lloyd-George was Home Secretary he had to introduce such Orders, and on 15th December, 1954 he described his attitude and said:
Now a word about the orders themselves. We did not think it right to present to Parliament, on a take it or leave it basis, an omnibus Order covering the whole of the recommendations of the Commission.
That is what is being done now.
We have thought that it would be for the convenience of Parliament, so far as possible, to have a separate Order for each separate change recommended by the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1788.]
That is what was done, and it was quoted against me with great effect by the present Prime Minister as recently as 12th November last when he said:
The Home Secretary has only to look at what Major Gwilym Lloyd George did in 1954.

I have already told the House what he did.
He laid the Orders before the House without amendment because he believed that that was the right thing to do and that it was the least controversial thing to do, but that did not stop the House debating them. As a Whip, I remember how at night, and through the night
—even longer than two days—
we debated individual constituencies, and how every hon. Member had an opportunity of debating his own problems and his own constituency.—[HON. MEMBERS: 'What about the Whips?']—I shall deal later with the question of the Whips, because those who wanted to vote in their own way were able to do so, but that is not going to happen with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Where is the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon? Too busy peddling arms to South Africa, I dare say.
What was the Prime Minister's complaint against me a year ago? It was that I had laid the Orders in a way
That is neither the form nor the spirit of the Act, nor the wish of the Parliaments which have passed them.
What is the Home Secretary's case? Is it that two blacks make a white, that two wrongs are right when they are done by Conservatives, even though a complaint was made when I did it? The Home Secretary is behaving in the same way as the Prime Minister alleged that I was doing and complained about.

Mr. Maudling: There is a lot of difference. The previous Home Secretary wanted the House to reject the impartial findings. I am asking the House to accept them.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall come to the difference very shortly. The right hon. Gentleman should not have interrupted at that point.
I want to continue with my quotation from the present Prime Minister because I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to know what their attitude was when they were in Opposition and to ask how they reconcile it with their attitude now that they are in power. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the speech made by the late Chuter Ede—when he was Home Secretary—in respect of the 1949 orders, he will see that Mr. Chuter Ede explained to the House that he had gone to great lengths to lay the Orders individually where possible and in groups where other


constituencies were affected by individual constituencies, precisely so that hon. Members could take a decision on their own constituencies in the context of the other constituencies which were involved.
The Home Secretary, in laying these Orders and advising the House to reject them, has not even carried out that duty, which his predecessor said he believed to be essential to the operation of the Act. We can understand why."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 455–8.]
Why is the Home Secretary not now giving hon. Members the opportunity to debate and decide on their own constituencies in the way that the Prime Minister asked that I should have done?
Twice this afternoon my attitude has been raised by the Home Secretary himself in the matter of the debating of individual constituencies. I do not know whether hon. Members have refreshed their minds about the Bill which I introduced in June, 1969, the House of Commons Redistribution (No. 2) Bill, which is in both the Library and the Vote Office, but if they turn to pages 5–12, the First Schedule to the Bill, they will see that in every case where I proposed that there should be a change in the boundaries of a constituency it was included separately in the Bill so that hon. Members had an opportunity of putting down Amendments and voting on them. That is the difference. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. These were the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, starting with Barking and finishing with the City of Westminster, St. Marylebone. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Chichester?"] In respect of Chichester we were asking the Commission to fix the boundaries. This is the first occasion on which any Home Secretary who has asked the House to approve changes in boundaries has not given the House the opportunity to amend them, debate them and vote on them.
As I have shown, and as I hope the House is now aware, the changes which I proposed were subject to amendment by the House, and a number of Amendments were put down and debated. When the Home Secretary says that I should not rebuke him for depriving the House of the opportunity to debate these changes, he is accusing me of doing something that I did not do. It was only where I was proposing no changes that they were

presented en bloc, not when it was suggested that certain constituencies should be changed and others wiped out. The Government advocated this procedure. How quickly they forget in Government what they preached in Opposition. How synthetic was a great deal of the rubbish that we heard last year in connection with this matter.
I suppose that the Home Secretary wants to save himself trouble. He has adopted a lazy way of doing this. No doubt debating these proposals would take three or four days of Parliamentary time, or maybe three or four nights. It has happened before. So be it. But if our constituencies are to be altered—not if they are to remain unchanged—there is every reason why we should take the necessary time to debate and vote on the alterations. What the Government want to do is to save a little time here to prevent hon. Members from discussing these proposals to enable them to ram through the Industrial Relations Bill. That is why the Government were unable to give us the necessary time to debate the Commission's proposals.
On the whole I accept that, broadly, the House should adhere to the advice—and it is no more than advice—that is given it by the Boundary Commissioners, but I hope that I have said enough this afternoon to show that there are individual cases where the Commissioners had the greatest difficulty in coming to a conclusion. On occasions they reached different conclusions, and in those circumstances surely the House would agree that it is best for the House to be in a position to consider these matters individually?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the need to reform local government, as indeed his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done. The reason why we put forward—and the House accepted—the postponement of parliamentary redistribution was the need to reorganise local government first. It still needs both drastic and early reorganisation. I regret that although the Minister for the Environment has paid lip-service to the question of local government reorganisation we have seen no proposals from him. It would have been far better for the Government to go ahead with local government reorganisation and, as soon as the new boundaries were clear,


to instruct the Boundary Commission to accelerate its next review. If they still cared to push ahead they could have done the whole job by 1975, and if the next election were as late as that it could have been fought on the new boundaries. As it is, because of the pedantic insistence of the Government in pushing these stale recommendations through we shall fight on a political register and on a map that will be little better than the one we have now, because it is becoming out of date so quickly. The Home Secretary held a blunderbuss at our heads, with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. On the whole, I recommend my hon. Friends to take it, because we must accept the great majority of decisions. But I say once again that the Home Secretary should have given the House the opportunity of taking certain decisions out and considering them.
It would have been quite possible—because the Commission made it clear that it considered this matter county by county—for the Home Secretary, even if he had not wanted to sit through the tedium of a night's debate on individual constituencies, to proceed in such a way that the matter was dealt with county by county, so that we could have sent individual counties to the Commission to re-consider instead of having to deal with a whole block of constituencies.
The Home Secretary chose not to proceed in that way. The Government have behaved with insincerity in this matter, in presenting the Orders in this way. They have gone back on what they said, while in Opposition, was the proper procedure. They are preventing a vote from being taken and are preventing hon. Members from taking individual decisions on the future of their own constituencies.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I have the pleasure of representing the constituency of Bebington, which consists not only of the borough of Bebington but also of part of the county borough of Birkenhead and is, I suppose, as fair a representation of a cross-section of this country as it is possible to find. We have our share of industry, represented by Lever Bros., for example, with its various companies specialising in everything from food to industrial supplies. We have large housing areas, spaciously set out in areas

with trees, and with plenty of parks. We also have our agricultural aspect, consisting of many hundreds of acres of fine Cheshire land.
This constituency was represented previously by Dr. Edwin Brooks, who worked hard to represent his constituents. He was untiring in his questioning of any policy with which he disagreed. I speak today because I wish to question one aspect of the changes in boundaries as they affect the Wirral Peninsula. The Peninsula has a total electorate of about 307,000, which is an average of 77,000 per electorate. Clearly, if it were the intention to average out the number of electors in each constituency, the Wirral Peninsula should have had an extra constituency. But that has not been recommended.
The Bebington constituency has an electorate of 82,000, approximately half of which—43,000—live in Bebington itself and the balance—about 39,000—in the southern end of the county borough of Birkenhead. Under the proposals which we are considering we shall lose that 50 per cent. of our electorate in Birkenhead and have added in its place the Borough of Ellesmere Port.
That change will result in a reduction of 542 electors in an already oversized electorate of about 82,000. This, however, is only an apparent reduction. By the time the Order comes into effect, Ellesmere Port will have expanded by far more than those 542, because it is a very fast-expanding town, taking a lot of overspill population from other parts of Merseyside. Furthermore, Ellesmere Port is not a natural bedfellow with Bebington. For example, it is not part of the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, and in any change in local government Ellesmere Port is likely to be linked with Chester, with which it has much stronger ties than with the Merseyside area. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take note not only of the possible changes in local government but of certain changes in the total electorate, and of the fact that by these Orders he is in reality increasing the size of an already oversized constituency.
Having said that, however, I must go on to say that I support the proposals because I believe strongly and passionately that it would be wrong for any Government, of whatever party, to


attempt to rewrite these impartial proposals. For that reason I believe that the Government have no option but to accept them. Nevertheless, I urge the Home Secretary to bear in mind the points that I have made because it is more than probable—it is almost inevitable—that it will be necessary to review this constituency within a very short time.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: It is with great pleasure that I rise to give what I suppose is my maiden non-maiden speech, immediately following the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram), who made a very distinguished maiden speech. I know exactly how he was feeling. I myself was in the same position recently. I am sure that he is relieved to have got it over. The House listened with great interest to what he said. He spoke with confidence, fluency and brevity. He made a constructive contribution to the debate, quite rightly speaking up for the interests of his own constituency. I am sure that we all look forward with pleasurable anticipation to his future contributions.
I rise to oppose the four Motions on the Order Paper and to give notice that if any of my hon. Friends—or any hon. Members opposite—will join me in the Division Lobby I intend to vote against all four. Having made that plain, I must declare a personal interest in the matter. The boundaries of the Romford constituency are to be altered under the proposals before the House. To put it at its lowest, the alteration proposed will not improve Labour's prospects in the constituency at the next election. Being human, I reckon that I should oppose these proposals even if I could not muster up any other objections to them. But, in fact, there are other objections to be made—at least three very cogent objections—to the argument that we should pass these proposals at this moment.
The basic issue before the House—despite what the Home Secretary suggested—is not whether redistribution should take place in this Parliament in time for the next General Election. We all agree that that should be so. The point at issue this afternoon is whether that redistribution shall or shall not take account of recent population changes and,

in particular, the extension of the franchise to new voters under the age of 21. The proposals before the House take no account of the increase in the electorate; they are already five years out of date. By the next election, they may well be 10 years old. They are based on the 1965 electorate, which then consisted of 36 million voters. The 1970 electoral register contains 39·6 million. That is a very considerable increase, the greater part of which is accounted for by the enfranchisement of the 18-year-old voter.
It may be argued that the growth in the franchise is not relevant to the redrawing of the parliamentary constituency boundaries, and this would certainly be the case if these young voters were evenly distributed throughout the country. But it is not the case. In the average constituency, there are about 3,000 voters under the age of 21, but in my constituency of Romford, which is by no means unique in this respect, there are over 10,000 young voters and in some constituencies with an ageing population there cannot be more than a few hundred.
This being the case, it seems extraordinary that the Home Secretary has not asked the Boundary Commissions to reexamine their proposals to take into account the new voters who have been added to the electorate. What, after all, is the hurry? This examination would not take very long—perhaps a year, certainly not much longer—because most of the work has already been done by the Commissioners and they would merely need to check their present proposals against recent changes in population.
The second argument against acting precipitately this afternoon is the desirability of synchronising local government reform and parliamentary redistribution. I would not be the only hon. Member, I think, who was horrified at the Home Secretary's indication that he does not expect to be able to have a local government reorganisation before 1978–79. This goes to show how little sense of urgency the Government show towards the problems of local government, which are getting out of hand under the obsolete structure which now exists. The Redcliffe-Maud Committee looked very closely into the problems of local government reform. If the Government felt a sense of urgency over this, it would


not be impossible to effect a reform within this Parliament and to synchronise it with a parliamentary redistribution.
I come to my third objection. The two previous redistributions under the 1949 Act took place towards the end of a Parliament. It is now proposed to effect a redistribution in the opening months of this Parliament. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has thought out the consequences of this. There is a large number of hon. Members whose boundaries will be changed. Many of them will find that they have to represent bits and pieces of two, three or more constituencies for the next three, four or five years.
Then there is the question of by-elections. The Home Secretary said that by-elections would be fought on existing boundaries. The local political parties will not waste much time reorganising themselves according to the new boundaries, and wisely so, because they will not want to be caught on the hop if there is a snap election. But, on average, there have been about 12 by-elections a year over the last two or three decades. If this Parliament is going on for four or aye years, there might be 30, 40, 50 or even 60 by-elections which had to be fought on the existing boundaries. This would mean that phantom organisations would have to be set up to select candidates and wage a campaign—a totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable state of affairs.
These are some of the reasons against passing these Orders, but I should like lastly to deal with the desirability of the whole system, because the long-term issue is much more important than the fate of these Orders. The present system was introduced in 1949. We would all agree that it was a major advance over the previous arrangements, but, because this was thought satisfactory in 1949, is it necessarily the best method in 1970?
Many arrangements which might have been appropriate a generation ago have now been overtaken by economic and social progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 37–8.]
I quote from the statement of the Chancellor yesterday afternoon.
We now know that the 1949 system is working most imperfectly. The first redistribution under that system, which came into effect in 1950, introduced a bias

against the Labour Party, which has been estimated by David Butler at 1½ per cent., into the electoral system. The consequence was that, in the 1951 election, as we all know, the Conservative Party won power even though they polled 230,000 fewer votes than the Labour Party. This bias against Labour has been somewhat reduced through population changes during the 1960's, but if these present proposals are passed—according to the academic experts who have examined the question closely—the bias will be restored and even increased.
We should be quite clear as to the reason for this bias. It is emphatically not a question of political partiality by the Boundary Commissions. The reason is the uneven distribution of Labour voters. The only way in which this bias could be removed in the short run under the present system would be to give a specific instruction to the Boundary Commission that it has to make sure that the overall effect of its recommendations is not detrimental to either major political party. What this means in practice is that, when adjudicating borderline cases, it will always have to come down on the side of the party which would be disadvantaged by the general trend of its recommendations. If such an instruction were given, it would greatly add to the complexity of the Commission's task, and it might well, as my right hon. Friend said, need the wisdom of Solomon to undertake this rôle effectively.
Fortunately, however, news from the United States suggests that a solution to this problem may be at hand. A great deal of money has been spent in America on research into what they call "redistricting" by computer during the last five years. This has the inestimable benefit of removing any suggestion of subjective bias by the Commissions.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should follow the American practice, upon which this whole system is based, of people declaring their political allegiance on the registration form?

Mr. Leonard: With respect, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me—perhaps I was not making myself clear. What I am talking about is the use of computers to help draw


electoral boundary lines, according to principles built into the computer. The requirement of political impartiality could be one such principle. There was a great deal of scepticism in the United States when this research began. As I see, it would be echoed in some quarters of the House today. But after five years hard work, this scepticism is rapidly disappearing in the United States.
Four principal methods have been investigated, according to the type of computer used and the variables which are built into the programme. Some of these methods might be unacceptable in British conditions, but it is already clear that the process is readily adaptable to a very wide range of political and demographic circumstances.
I can understand that a proposal, the effect of which would be to remove a pro-Conservative bias in the present system, might not have a great or obvious appeal to hon. Members opposite, but I would ask them to reflect that a system which disadvantages Labour today may harm the Tories tomorrow. In fact, before 1950, there was an anti-Tory bias in the electoral system which was even greater than the anti-Labour bias which has existed in recent years.
If the Government are really concerned to secure fair constituency boundaries and remove the redistributive process from the party dogfight into which it has been plunged during the past year, the proper course of action is clear. It is to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into relevant American and other overseas experience in this delicate sphere and, in the meantime, to refrain from rushing ahead with these now obsolete proposals of the Boundary Commission.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I offer my sincere and cordial congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) on his admirable maiden speech. He combined, as the House will testify, the qualities of clarity and brevity and I know I speak for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we look forward to hearing from him soon and frequently.
I listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) and there was much in the first

half of his speech with which I could agree. Then he went into his final exordium, about the introduction of computers. I thought that it was as if the Labour Party, having apparently dispaired of commanding themselves to the sound political judgment of the British people, and casting about for allies, had to range so far as to light upon the improbable assistance of the computer.
Whether or not it would work out in the way the hon. Gentleman described I do not know. He might find it a shorter cut to adopt the tactics of a town clerk in the last century when divorce could be obtained only by Act of Parliament. He slid into the Municipal Bill a Clause declaring the divorce of the town clerk in question. The hon. Gentleman might move to amend the Order to insert a provision for his perpetual representation of his constituency.
I go with him in some of what he said earlier about the shortcomings of our present procedure in reflecting the demographic changes in this country. I have no difficulty in resisting his invitation to vote against the Order, however. That would be extremely unwise and unrealistic. We must obviously accept the Order as being the impartial product of the Commission and as being at any rate much better than the state of affairs that we now have.
Having said that, I am bound to say that I have a good many comments to make on the Order and the position which it reflects. This is, of course, a debate in which hon. Members properly refer to the effects on their own constituencies, and I will make some references to the position in my area, but rather by way of illustration of the more general comments which I wish to make.
I will first indicate the background against which I think we should approach these matters. We have had a quarter of a century of rapid and considerable demographic change and during this time we have persisted in our national characteristic of proclaiming the virtues of Parliamentary democracy, and we have even devised constitutions for various other countries.
Our own efforts, however, to fit the parliamentary representation in this country to a changing demographic pattern have been slow and hesitant and, to some extent, ineffective. In saying that, I am


not referring primarily to the disputes that we had in the last Parliament. I intervened in those debates and have nothing to unsay. But I do not want today to hark back to "far off things and battles long ago". I am referring to our whole mechanism by which we seek to shape our parliamentary representation on the basis of equality of voting power, which is the touchstone of parliamentary democracy.
The Order represents the first major change in nearly 16 years since the Commission's report of November, 1954, and it is only the second major revision in the whole of this quarter century of the changing demographic pattern in this country. The criticisms I have to make are, first, that the Order is in many respects unfortunately out of date, even at the time of taking effect, and, secondly, that the machinery for rectification is slow and inadequate. The resulting position from these two matters is that the pattern of representation that we get is not as good as we should seek to make it.
I will illustrate the position from the constituency which I know best, which is my own. I will round off the figures in thousands to make the illustration easier to follow. In 1966 we in East Hertfordshire had 79,000 electors, which was about 21,000 above the national constituency average. The suggested remedy by the Boundary Commission was an adjustment which, on the 1965 figures, which were used, would have brought it down to 69,000—still, of course, 10,000 above the then quota or prescribed optimum. Those figures, on the Commissioner's 1968 evaluation, came up to 74,000 electors and 15,000 above the quota. The figures, even on the 1968 evaluation, are already out of date and falsified.
Unlike the Commission, we now have the benefit of the 1970 February electoral register, and that gives us in East Hertfordshire, on the existing boundaries, until the passage of this Order, 94,000 electors, being 30,000 above the revised electoral quota of 64,000. But we are also able to evaluate the effect of the adjustment made by the Order, and that adjustment made to the East Hertfordshire constituency is simply to take out of it the urban district of Ware, which has 10,394 electors. Taking off that 10,000 from the 94,000 gives us 84,000.
Having made these notes without knowledge of the Home Office statistics, I felt a tremor of apprehension when I learned of the document which had been placed in the Library. I thought that my figures might be wrong. Having now secured a copy of the statistics, I see that I am right and that the figure is given as 83,812. That means that taking that constituency as an example, we start on the basis of the Order with a figure of 20,000 above the electoral quota, an excess of nearly one-third over what the prescribed optimum should be.
One must think that it hardly makes sense to cut up a constituency, and necessarily sever old associations, to produce such an unrewarding result in terms of parity of constituency electorates.

Mr. David Weitzman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his criticism, and I agree with him, has he not adduced a strong argument to show that there should be a Motion in respect of each constituency to enable each case to be given and dealt with? As things stand, there is no remedy whatever.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I do not think so. It would not help to have matters subdivided, and for me to vote against the Order accordingly, because in the unlikely event of my succeeding, I would make the position even worse in terms of electoral equality from the point of view of the representation of my constituents. That is why I am using this not as an ad hoc argument but as an illustrative argument of general propositions which, I feel, underlie the whole of this case. It is not an isolated phenomenon. It is a fairly usual phenomenon, especially in the outer Metropolitan area and the South-East region.
Indeed, in looking at the Home Office statistics which I have obtained from the Library I see the following Hertfordshire figures in addition to the East Hertfordshire constituency of 83,812: Hemel Hempstead, 79,000; Hertford and Stevenage, 73,000; Hitchin, 69,000; St. Albans, 68,000; South Hertfordshire, 63,000; and South-West Hertfordshire, 76,000. Nearly all of these are well ahead of the electoral quota.
There are two basic reasons for the somewhat unsatisfactory position that we


now have. First, the statutory rule directs attention to the existing population figures with an implied exclusion of future population movement. Secondly, having so excluded the future by implication, nevertheless the Order extends a long way into the future before it is capable of replacement.
The Commission expressly recognised the first of those difficulties at paragraph 39 of its report when it said:
We are not required by the Rules to pay regard to future population movement … The Rules require the use of current electorates and do not ask us to make recommendations on the basis of electorates as they will be in, say, five or ten years 
That limitation becomes the more serious when the timetable for reviews and reports is, as in the 1958 Act, a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 15 years. If past experience is a guide, the maximum will become the normal. That means that it will be 1984 before we get another report. If we look at the position then, some of these Hertfordshire constituencies may well be 100,000 or, perhaps, double—who knows—the prescribed quota by that time.
We are not without guidelines to future population movements. For example, there has been recently published the Strategic Plan for the South-East, known as the Burns Report. It provides some projections. We see from page 51 of that Report that whereas the population of Greater London is expected to fall by nearly half a million between 1966 and 1981, the population of the outer Metropolitan area and the rest of the South-East region is expected to rise by over two million. During that period, as we see from the timetable in the 1958 Act, it is unlikely that we shall have any revision of the electoral boundaries. We therefore get anomalies at the start, certainties of aggravation over the next decade and no timely means of correction.
I know and appreciate the sort of considerations which militate against frequent revision, in particular the consideration that too-frequent changes disrupt old and valued constituency links and associations. To some extent, however, we are already getting the effect of the disruption of constituencies, but we are getting it without achieving the desired

result. To some extent, we are paying the penalty without receiving the goods.
I therefore come to the conclusion that it is right to approve the Order, because that is the clear contemplation of the outcome of the Commission's work which is contemplated in the enabling Act of 1949. I ask my right hon. Friends, however, not to be content with this, not simply to take the view that they have done their statutory duty, whatever their predecessors may have done. I ask them to recognise that although the position will be better after the passage of the Order than it is at present, it will still, in many respects, be anomalous and unsatisfactory.
It is not that I dislike representing a large constituency or seeking to the best of my ability to serve the interests of many constituents, but I thought it wrong in the last Parliament that when we went through the Division Lobby, Hertfordshire Members should be representing the votes of, perhaps, 90,000 or more constituents when some hon. Members—from Birmingham and Manchester, for example—represented only 20,000 or 30,000. What I do not want to have to do is to tell my constituents that in spite of the Order, we may be the end of the decade be getting very large disparities again.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friends to consider carefully whether we cannot improve the approach and the procedures in this vital matter of Parliamentary representation and, in particular, whether effect cannot be given to estimates and projections of population changes as well as merely the current population position; whether they cannot consider perhaps the expedition of the timetable of review and revision; whether we might not have more partial reviews under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act, perhaps on a regional basis, reviewing complementarily areas of over-representation and under-representation and seeing whether a more equal and fair allocation cannot be made by balancing the one against the other.
I think and hope that those are reasonable and moderate requests and I for one would certainly feel a good deal happier at the passage of the Order, inevitable and right as I believe it to be at the present time, if my right hon. Friends


would bend their undoubted abilities and good will to this task, so vital to our Parliamentary democracy.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I wish to endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) and also to oppose the Motion. I have tabled an Amendment which, I am sorry to say, the rules under the Act prevent being called. At this stage, however, I appeal to the Home Secretary—or rather, in his absence, to his hon. Friend the Minister of State—to withdraw from the Motion the recommendations concerning Kensington and Chelsea. In urging that course, I wish to concentrate on a purely legal issue. If the Home Secretary cannot do that at this stage, I must oppose the Motion.
The basic reason why I urge that the recommendation for Kensington and Chelsea should not be included is not only that it was one of the five most borderline recommendations in the Boundary Commission's Report, as is clear from paragraphs 48 to 50, but that it is the only instance in which the Commission has changed its recommendations in the light of information which did not become available until 1968. I consider that this recommendation is ultra vires the Commission, and I am supported in this view by a number of lawyers of considerable eminence.
Hon. Members may know that the validity of the recommendations was challenged in the courts in proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division, in which Dr. Horace King was the first defendant. Those proceedings were frustrated by the presentation of the Commission's report to the Home Secretary's predecessor. As a result, those proceedings, in which the whole question of whether what is recommended is valid in law would have been considered, have been overridden by the presentation of the report. There is no possibility, except at the discretion of the Home Secretary or by the rejection of the Order, for the legality of the recommendation to be considered.
I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. The Vote Office appears to be without copies. The rules contained in the Second Schedule require that:

The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as practicable having regard to the foregoing rules …
The relevant date for the purposes of the recommendations now before the House was 16th February 1965.
At that time, the Boundary Commission considered the situation in Kensington and Chelsea and, taking account of everything that it could forsee at that time, recommended that there should be three constituencies. As they say in their report, the Commissioners quite reasonably took account of population changes that they could foresee. In paragraph 39, they say:
We are not required by the Rules to pay regard to future population movement but in the 1954 review the Commission took some account of this factor where population change was 'imminent'. The Rules require the use of current electorates and do not ask us to make recommendations on the basis of electorates as they will be in, say, five or ten years. We cannot, however, escape the fact that the intention of the present law is that a general review shall form the basis of constituency boundaries for at least the next ten years and it would therefore be desirable to make recommendations that would, so far as possible, cushion the effect of gains or losses of electorate so far as they could be foreseen with some degree of certainty.
I think that the House will accept that that is a commonsense and reasonable viewpoint for the Commissioners to have adopted. But it is clear from further passages in the report and from detailed passages relating to Kensington and Chelsea that what they foresaw in 1965 was that the population of Kensington and Chelsea would continue to justify three constituencies. They recommended three constituencies. Then, in 1968, they had regard to changes in the population of those constituencies and recommended that they should be reduced to two.
As my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary pointed out, the recommendations were then considered by another public inquiry. Further representations were made, and the Assistant Commissioner reported to the Commission that, in his opinion, the electorate of Kensington and Chelsea should continue to be represented by three constituencies. His report, nevertheless, was disregarded by the Boundary Commission. In reaching its conclusion, the Commission clearly had regard to facts which became known only in 1968. In other words, it disregarded completely the


recommendations which it set out in paragraphs 39 and 40 of its own report. If we are to have the Boundary Commission changing its mind three years after the enumeration date on the basis of information which came to hand only in 1968 in respect of one constituency, we must have all the constituencies reviewed on the basis of the situation in 1968.
Obviously, I accept that regard must be had to what was foreseen in 1965. If it was know that a new town was to be built or that an entire area was to be demolished, the Boundary Commission obviously would have been right in 1965 to take those factors into account. However, if one date is not settled upon with the country taken as a whole at that date and recommendations made accordingly, there is no end to the consideration which has to be given. It must be based on one date alone. The powers of the Commission are to base it on one date alone, and that date is February, 1965, not 1968.
That is the essentially simple point on which the High Court proceedings to which I have referred were based. I would invite the House, in circumstances where a recommendation is placed before it which is directly contrary to the express requirements of the Act about having regard to one enumeration date, to reject the Order, assuming that that is the only way in which we can express disapproval of individual matters. The point made by other hon. Members that these matters should be brought before the House individually is thus underlined. When they are lumped together, an hon. Member has no alternative other than to vote against all the items if he objects to one.
I would reinforce what I have been saying in relation to the recommendations about Kensington and Chelsea with a point which was strongly made by the Assistant Commissioner who held the public inquiry. It was represented to him that there was a substantial under-representation of the electorate in Kensington and Chelsea by reason of the fact that in areas of high multiple occupation, large numbers of electors were not recorded on the register. This was fully accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, who said in relation to North Kensington:

I think (1) that the fall in electorate in North Kensington is more apparent than real, (2) that it is far more than counterbalanced by the heavy number of those who ought to be electors but, not being politically conscious, are at present unaware of their right to become electors as many of them probably ultimately will.
The views of the Commission on this are set out in paragraph 41 of its report:
In some areas it was represented that certain element of the resident population had escaped inclusion on the electoral register, and that we should make allowance for this as such areas merited special representation. Though superficially attractive, this comes close to an argument that an area should be overrepresented as compared to other areas because it is supposed to contain a larger number than usual of people who do not take steps to ensure that they are registered as electors. We did not feel that we should make recommendations on the basis of this argument.
I can understand why the Boundary Commission should have taken that view, but certainly, in any future inquiries, account should be taken of the fact that in areas of high multiple occupation there is not adequate representation of a very large proportion of the electorate. There is a widespread belief that the electoral register is used for income tax purposes and, as landlords are responsible for filling in forms, they tend to under-represent their tenants since they feel that rents will be assessed for tax. There is also an incentive to under-represent numbers of tenants where houses are overcrowded, as a large proportion of houses in North Kensington are. The result is a substantial under-representation of the electorate in areas of acute housing stress. We know the areas of high multiple occupation, and I submit that the Boundary Commission in future should take account of this fact in areas where it is virtually certain that there will be substantial under-representation of the number of potential electors.
I will not pretend that I am making these points disinterestedly. These changes with regard to Kensington and Chelsea are likely to result in the loss of the prospect of Labour retaining one of the seats. I submit, however, that the points I have been making are of general application, that the recommendation of the Boundary Commission so far as it relates to Kensington and Chelsea is ultra vires and that in view of the High Court proceedings, the matter should, at the least, have been referred to the Law


Officers for consideration, as I requested, in correspondence, the Home Secretary to do, before the report was placed unamended before the House. Failing that, I have no alternative but to oppose the Motion.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Representing, as I do, a great industrial city in the North, it is particularly pleasurable for me to be able to make what I might call my second maiden speech on a subject which particularly concerns my constituency and the fine city which I have the honour to represent.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there was a strong case for implementing in full the recommendations of the Boundary Commission as laid before this House, but he went on to say that the Government recognised that there was an exceptional need to show impartiality. A sign of strong government is a willingness to recognise the requirement for flexibility, to recognise where situations and circumstances have drastically changed. I submit that one of those areas where circumstances have drastically changed is in the proposals of the Boundary Commission for the City of Bradford.
As is known, I have laid before the House an Amendment, which regrettably was not taken, but that Amendment would in essence have had the support of all parties in our city. The Liberal Federation has written to the Home Secretary, and I have a copy of the letter before me. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), although not a friend in politics, has also laid before the House an Amendment on the same subject.
A very wide range of informed and responsible opinion in my city has made representations to the Government—to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary—to the chairman of the governing party and to many others concerned in this matter. These bodies have ranged from the Chamber of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the City Council, the Ukranian community, the Pakistan Society, the Professional Women's Guild and a whole host of interested individuals who care

for the workings of this House and are concerned for the workings of our parliamentary institutions. In this age of cynicism, it does them credit that they should take the trouble to make these representations, and I believe that the Government would be doing them a grave disservice if they did not show flexibility and did not yield in some way to the efforts which these people have made to ensure that the city in which they live shall receive proper representation in this House.
There is precedent on which we can worthily draw. Let us turn to the great debates of 1948. In them we can read magnificent speeches from the Bradford Members of that day. I read first from the speech of the then hon. Member for Bradford, East, Mr. McLeavy, who said:
Speaking for myself and for my three Bradford colleagues, I say that we are less concerned about whether our seats are retained by this adjustment than we are that the City of Bradford shall have fair and equitable representation, in order that our great industrial activities may find true expression in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 3082.]
The same is true today. The position is very similar. To within a thousand or two either way, the case is identical. This time, if the proposals of the Boundary Commission go through, the City of Bradford will be grossly under-represented with regard to its neighbours in the same area, the wool textile industry, and the rest of the country as a whole. Speaking for those industrial activites, I believe that many hon. Members in this House are clothed thanks to the work-people of the City of Bradford. The city's wool trade and the wool trade generally contributes £150 million to the balance of payments annually. It is the country's sixth most important exporting industry.
These are factors which should be taken into consideration, because at this time the wool trade is facing a difficult period. Our industrial activities require the highest degree of political representation to point out the difficulties which they face. Our city has unemployment higher than at any time since the Second World War.
We have seen how, in cold legal terms, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) drove a horse and buggy


through the case of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. and learned Friend represented the council's case at the court of inquiry in the City of Bradford, and it is interesting to note that not only was the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner at the court of inquiry that we should retain four seats, but also that the Commission's provisional recommendations were the same, that we should retain four parliamentary constituencies.
Referring to these industrial problems, it is interesting to note that in a document which will be available very soon, the Yorkshire and Humberside Planning Council expresses the belief that only by the most strenuous efforts will my city and its area be able to arrest the adverse trends over the period up to 1981. We need adequate representation for our City.
To quote another example, I learned yesterday that the Secretary of State for the Environment had decided that our local airport was not to have the runway extension that it needed—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wilkinson: I will return to the matter in question, Mr. Speaker. These are examples of the great necessity of having adequate Parliamentary representation.
Let us go back to October, 1944, to Mr. Secretary Morrison and his great speech on this matter, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred, in which he said that Parliament must at times be supreme in this matter. If there is a question of dispute and if this House cannot adjudicate, the impartiality which we have been exhorted to ensure will not in my own city be seen to have been observed. People say that for fear of gerrymandering we must not pick or choose items in the report.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said on 19th June, 1969, that there was a duty to give effect to the proposals,
subject only to the power to modify. The meaning of 'modify' is to make partial changes in something; to alter without radical transformation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 762.]
I insist that it would not be a radical transformation to enable the City of Bradford to have the representation which was

recommended by the provisional recommendations and by the court of inquiry.
Then we turn to our noble Friends in another place. They are immune from the shackles and trammels of party responsibility. I turn to my noble Friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who, in July of last year, said that the Home Secretary of the day had an obligation to lay proposals before Parliament based on, but not necessarily identical with, the Commission's recommendations. If my right hon. Friend finds it impossible to accelerate an interim examination into Bradford's case, which is similar to many others in the country, I for one will not be able to support him.
I come now to other factors of interest and importance in this connection. First, does it so much matter whether we lose a seat? The very fact that such a wide range of responsible bodies and public opinion have taken an interest in the matter is a strong argument. Moreover, we have precedents to which we can turn. In 1954, the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said,
We believe in the future of Blackburn and its future expansion.
I believe in the future of my City of Bradford. Bradford will fight on this, and Bradford will be seen by the House and the country to be right.
Speaking on 18th June, 1947, another right hon. Member for Bradford, was reported in the Bradford Press as follows:
In our case, it has really nothing to do with party valuations.
That was none other than the late Mr. Maurice Webb, whom you will recall personally, I think, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say:
Whether Bradford is represented by Labour, Conservative or Liberal, or any other Members of Parliament is beside the point.
Of course it is. Our fine city has contributed much to politics and civic institutions over the past 100 years. This is the centenary of the W. E. Forster Education Act. It was in the City of Bradford that the I.L.P. had its origins. It was in Bradford that radical forward-looking Conservatism has had forthright expression. Many such hon. Members from Bradford, as Mr. Arthur Tiley and Sir William Taylor in recent years, are familiar to the House.
Mr. Curtis Bennett, the Assistant Commissioner, put it in this way:
I was left with the impression that such a step"—
that is, the reduction of Bradford's Parliamentary representation—
would tend to diminish its prestige and give an appearance of a reduction in its relative importance and would thus be damaging to Bradford's development.
I come now to the question of those who reside in our constituencies but who are—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must not move the Amendment which he would like to move. He must argue why he is for or against the Order as a whole.

Mr. Wilkinson: I wish to make a general point, a point which has been touched upon by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is the shadow Home Secretary, and the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), among others. I refer to the position of people who reside in the constituency but who are not on the electoral roll. As the hon. Member for Kensington, North and others have observed, many people living in tenements and properties in multiple occupation, and others of immigrant origin who cannot understand the language of the registration form, are put at a disadvantage.
According to an article in the Sunday Times of 7th June, 1970, a lecturer in politics at the local university—Bradford—is quoted as estimating that 20 to 25 per cent. of the immigrant population of Bradford—there are probably between 30,000 and 40,000 in the city—are not on the electoral roll. A similar state of affairs can be found elsewhere in the country, and it raises a question which I most earnestly press the House to consider.
It is particularly sad that under these proposals the very places which most need adequate parliamentary representation, the centres of industry and the big conurbations, tend to be underrepresented and are losing Members of Parliament. Apart from the residents to whom I have already referred, there are the displaced persons from Eastern

Europe, people who came here after the war and who have contributed in every way to our society, but who are disfranchised by not being on the register.
Here is a list of the county boroughs and London boroughs principally concerned. Birmingham county borough loses a seat. Bradford is another example, as are Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham. In the London area, there are boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith, Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and the City of Westminster.
No one can deny that these are places which fully deserve truly adequate representation, since they are, on the whole, places in which immigrant populations are concentrated and in respect of which it is most important that community relations and the results of immigration be brought to the attention of the House. I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment to read from the representation sent to the Home Secretary by our own Pakistan Society, a representation which concerns not just Bradford, but many other parts of the country:
It is generally agreed that under-representation of the city's immigrant population on the electoral register is a fact. We feel"—
this is signed by a leading justice of the peace who is an immigrant and many others—
We feel that considerations of racial harmony are of paramount importance, and the number of the city's Members of Parliament should reflect adequately the rights of the immigrant population".
People care in my city. We in the House of Commons should care about the situation there and in comparable cities. One can adduce other examples and make comparisons to demonstrate where manifest injustice is likely to be perpetrated if the Orders go through. It is a reasonable and just exercise to compare cities of comparable size. Let us take three major cities—Bradford, Newcastle and Cardiff. In 1965, when this great exercise began, the City of Bradford had 202,098 electors on the register. Newcastle had 194,580, and Cardiff had 183,260. One must take into account not only those figures but the 1970 figures, too. In 1970, Bradford had 221,000, Newcastle had 196,000 and Cardiff had 192,000. Yet Cardiff, the smallest of the three, is to gain a seat and go up to four.


I realise that the Welsh have special susceptibilities which we must not infringe, but Cardiff is none the less a comparable industrial city. The number on the register in one of Newcastle's divisions—Newcastle, Central—has fallen to 31,628, whereas Bradford, East, which is to be abolished, has 40,720. Yet Newcastle is to retain its four constituencies although the entitlement of the Northumberland area is, I believe, one-tenth over the norm.
One can see in this way, taking comparable cities into account, that there will be monstrous injustice.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is it not a fact, also, that Newcastle now has 15,000 fewer population than Bradford but will keep four seats, whereas Bradford will go down to three; and does not the hon. Gentleman consider it to be a crowning insult by the Government that they should think of Bradford, of all places, to sacrifice a seat simply because they require to give an extra seat to Devon and Cornwall, at the other end of England?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, indeed; I am grateful to my friend from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Bradford, East. I am glad that he has brought that also to the attention of the House. It reminds me that there was another historical accident. The Commissioners provisionally recommended that there be four Members of Parliament for Bradford. Then, in 1967—there must be many similar instances throughout the country—they discovered that a local ward redistribution was taking place, so they were statutorily bound by the Act to go in and look again. They duly did so, and said that over the years and in other parts of the country the quota in question had created difficulties and they reckoned that the West Riding had one-third or thereabouts of a Member of Parliament too many; so they took it out of Bradford because Bradford had changed its ward boundaries. It was just as fortuitous as that, and I am sure that such fortuitous occurrences are not the sort of basis on which my right hon. Friends would wish to legislate.
I have done my best to state the importance attached to the proposals by those of us in my city who are affected,

as are some others. I have made it clear that I will not be able to support the Government on them unless they show some flexibility.
I pointed out in an intervention earlier that the greatest alteration in the franchise since 1928 has taken place. An example is the seat that is likely to be abolished of Bradford, East. Not only has a brand new technological university been established there since the Commissioners did their little exercise, but there are also the technical college, with students on the register, and the college of education. In fact, if the changes go through in my city, one constituency will have nearly all the immigrant population, both railway stations, the cathedral, the university, the college of further education, and the city hall. It would virtually have the lot. That is the sort of imbalance and injustice which the Government should seek to rectify.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I liked the declaration of independence by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). It is a rare thing on the opposite side of the House and I rejoice in it. I also rejoice in the hon. Gentleman's faith that he was hoping for some impartiality and flexibility on the part of the Government, especially after the Home Secretary's speech, which showed some of the greatest inflexibility I have seen in my 10 years in the House.
As for impartiality, I served on the Standing Committee which considered the London Government Bill. There I saw Conservative Party's so-called impartiality carve up the old London County Council in such a way that it was practically impossible for my party ever to win control of the G.L.C. or to get back to power for some years.
I liked particularly the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for his constituency. I know that he will forgive me if I say that I regret to see him here, because Norman Hazeldine, his predecessor, was a personal friend of mine. But most of us agree with the hon. Gentleman in that we are seeking to argue this blanket Order on the


basis of constituency problems and experience. We do so against the whole constituency background, because what happens in one constituency is often similar to what happens in many other constituencies.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), the hon. Member for Bradford, West and I share several things. In my constituency I have the fourth highest number of immigrants in the country. The question of how multi-occupation and fluidity in moving across constituency boundaries affects the drawing of boundaries is very pertinent, and it was given no consideration by the Boundary Commissions.
I regret very much the way in which the Government have put forward the Orders in blanket form. Most of our time in the House is spent in discussing general matters and creating legislation and climates of opinion economically, socially and politically. The number of times when we are charged with the responsibility of representing things which directly affect the people who sent us here are few and far between, so much so, Mr. Speaker, that at Question Time when you feel that a constituency interest is involved you go out of your way to call the Member so that that interest can be stated.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Bradford, West, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and I inevitably draw on our constituency experience and make constituency points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman put his finger on the whole question of numbers and statistics which emerged from the Commission and did so very succinctly. His hon. Friend followed up the point that in the light of the Commission's remit we find it almost incomprehensible when we look at the disparity of numbers in all the constituencies which are being re-drawn. They seem to have no bearing at all on the optimum number in the original remit.
I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that I am rather suspicious of computers. I agree with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that in the ultimate it is Parliament which must decide and I question the wisdom of both the Commissioners' and the Assistant

Commissioners' inquiries in many cases. I should be even more concerned if the decision were so weighted by computerised facts that Parliament became even further away from deciding future boundary changes. I am especially concerned with future possibilities because I happen to serve on the Medical Research Council. We have now reached the stage where research is going on to help the computer with things called "Samis"—socially acceptable monitoring instruments. I can see the possibility of future boundaries being drawn as a result of socially acceptable monitoring instruments being placed on each individual voter, and the facts so obtained being fed into some computer. Eventually we would need no Boundary Commission or even Parliament, because the result would come out at the end of the tape.
The two points I wish to raise are human, and this is where the Government's blanket proposals are so bad from a constituency point of view. It so happens that the proposed changes will benefit my party in my area, but I oppose the way in which the changes are being made because they ride roughshod over all the local knowledge and local cultural activities. A parliamentary constituency is more than just so many heads to be counted every five years. It is a community. Therefore I object on two counts to the way in which the boundaries have been drawn in my area, and these objections must be equally valid in many other areas.
First, there is the ignoring of local history and tradition in small unnecessary ways. Willesden goes back to the year 983, and my parish church was built at the same time as Westminster Abbey. A change of name after a thousand years annoys local susceptibilities. I put it no higher than that. There is no reason why things like this should not be considered and why it should be impossible for Parliament to reach a conclusion on our representations on behalf of the people who sent us here, so that local pride can be maintained.
My main objection, however, in my own area is purely geographical. As the Order stands, my party will gain, and unless there is an enormous change in political thinking the London Borough of Brent will have two Labour Members and one Conservative, instead of two


Conservative and two Labour Members. But the boundaries have been drawn in such a way that both the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) and I object to them. Part of his constituency will stick into mine like a peninsula, and vice-versa.
The North Circular Road runs through the heart of Brent, dividing it into two clear parts, rather like the Berlin Wall with two Checkpoint Charlies. There are only two ways of getting from the Wembley part to the Willesden area. The boundaries have been redrawn in such a way that there is only one road which bridges the six wards in my old constituency to the three new wards that I shall assume in Wembley. This will mean that I do not have a viable area from the point of view of social work, and community activity—the recently-started organisation to help the disabled, for example, and the deaf, in which I am very interested. There will be just the one bridge between two pockets of the constituency. There are no houses in one part of the constituency adjacent to houses on the other side of the constituency. There is only a row of factories and that bridge between the two.
One of the things that hon. Members on both sides are constantly trying to do is to create community participation and responsibility—and not just in politics, because our responsibility goes further than that, but in the whole way in which a neighbourhood and community are built up. We are particularly proud in Willesden that we have events which used to take place only in country areas, like the Brent show, which attracts at a weekend 30,000 people who come to see what farming looks like. They are people from a completely industrialised area where the only farm belongs to the Guinness factory, more noted for a beverage other than milk.
We naturally want to resist to the utmost this kind of boundary revision, pushed through without the opportunity to discuss the true local feelings of the people we are sent here to represent. The Government have been very ill-advised in view of all the changes since the boundaries were recommended by the Commissioners. My constituency population has changed three times, and within the past year it has changed by 3,000.
Even more important is the fact that unless there is a method by which changes in the community caused by the large number of immigrants and other changes can be reflected in the way in which we represent our electors, unless there is contact between me and those whom I represent, we make a farce of our being here in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster, unable to keep our feet firmly on the ground in our constituencies.
What I am putting to the House are non-statistical, non-computerised arguments. These matters should have been considered, and we should have had the opportunity to consider them if the Government had chosen to act as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) did in July when we had an opportunity to discuss and amend any changes.
I condemn the Government for gerrymandering and being inflexible and absolutely partial in trying to seek electoral advantages at the expense of the traditional, ordinary rights of the voters that send us here.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I apologise to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) for not having been here for the whole of his speech. Unfortunately, I was called away during the debate, but I heard his concluding remarks.
I listened with great care to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I was not sure which I admired most—his debating skill, which is considerable, or his effrontery, which is even more considerable. As far as I could make out, he based his case upon the fact that two wrongs do not make a right, from which I gathered that he now admits, as I am sure he admitted before, that his original action when he held the responsibility as Home Secretary was wrong.
I do not want to pursue that part of the argument, but only to intervene briefly to add my protest to those from both sides of the House about the way in which we are now dealing with the question of boundary changes. In 1954, as hon. Members on this side pointed out to the then Prime Minister nearly 12 months ago, we adopted a very different procedure. We were able to consider grouped constituencies which


were mutually affected by the proposed changes, and if necessary vote against the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The arguments adduced by us nearly 12 months ago, when the question was first raised in the House, were sound then and are sound now. We should have made it possible for the House to debate the recommendations in such a way that those of us with objections to them could have made those objections known and carried them into the Lobbies. I thought then that the procedure suggested by the then Government was abuse of the procedure of the House, and I must confess that I think that the present system is abuse of the procedure of the House, too.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) had some critical things to say about the way in which we carry out boundary changes, and I support what he said. Looking at the changes proposed, as they affect the various constituencies, we find that even now, because of the lapse of time since the Commission carried out its investigations, many constituencies are much larger than it was the established aim of the Commission to effect. For example, the constituency, of Wycombe, after it has been torn and dismembered by the Commission's recommendations, would still have over 75,000 electors on the register. I hazard the guess that, by the next Election, supposing it came by 1974, which is not too unlikely, the electorate would be well over 80,000, probably approaching 85,000. Therefore, the Commission's original aim would not be met by these recommendations.
Because of the lapse of time, and because the recommendations are now out of date, we should have taken the opportunity to have speeded up our reconsideration of local government reform, which might have carried with it changes in responsibility in local government in general. That might have meant the establishment of some form of regional authorities to which certain responsibilities now earned by the House could be devolved. This would mean a change in our form and shape of government national and local. It could mean that we would not need as many Members of Parliament as there now are. I am one of those who hold the perhaps unpopular view that there are too many

Members and that any changes which add to the number are to be deplored and not welcomed.
I foresee that, unless there are changes right throughout the whole structure of government, national and local, so that there is a spreading of the responsibilities now carried by the House, it might be necessary to carry on with the same number of Members. A comprehensive review might have enabled us to look at this logically.
To illustrate this by a personal example—in these matters one can speak only from personal experience—when I first won the Wycombe seat the electorate was 56,000. Today under the old boundaries it is over 90,000. If they remained unchanged until the next election I suppose that the number could well be 110,000. I personally—I suppose this applies to the majority of Members with a constituency of the same geographical size as mine—have found no greater difficulty in looking after the interests of nearly 100,000 electors than I did in looking after the interests of 56,000 electors when I first won the seat. It is a question of having the right resources and organisation. If constituencies were larger, provided that the procedures of the House were altered accordingly and proper facilities made available to Members, there would be no problem in Members dealing with larger constituencies than those with which they now deal.
I am sorry that we are faced with the necessity of either voting for all or against all of the proposals contained in these Orders and that we are not able to consider them at least section by section, county by county, or in groups of mutually affected constituencies. That would have been a much better way of dealing with the matter. If I understood correctly what was said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, it is not the Opposition's intention to vote against the Orders. I think that that is a correct decision and that in all probability the Orders will go through without a dissenting voice. However, that does not mean that there is not a great feeling of uneasiness on both sides about the way this is being done. I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East in urging the Government to look afresh


at the future methods by which we change constituency boundaries. I am certain that the present method is not right. A system which introduces recommendations which are out of date even before they come to the House cannot be right for the proper allocation of boundaries.
Having made my protest, I do not wish to add any more, except on a note of personal regret to say that for over 18 years I have worked in my constituency and have grown to know many thousands of people throughout it. I am about to lose a considerable part of it. I like to think that my electors regret that as much as I regret it. It is splitting up some traditional associations which have existed for many years. At one stage, it threatened to take away the Hughenden valley, including the home of Disraeli, from the constituency which traditionally, for hundreds of years, has been associated with Wycombe. Fortunately, we were able to avert that during the inquiry. That is what happens when old associations of this kind are broken up. I express my personal regret that I am about to lose a very attractive and nice part of my constituency, as I am sure that other hon. Members who are losing theirs deeply regret their loss.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: One point on which general agreement emerges is that hon. Members on both sides think that the Home Secretary has shown very bad judgment in presenting the Orders to us en bloc. His attempt to defend his course of action by citing the procedures proposed, in the very different circumstances, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for not changing the boundaries last year, was very feeble.
The Home Secretary's action is regrettable, because hon. Members have much to say which is of great importance to their own constituencies and areas. They should have been given the proper time to deploy their case and, if need be, to divide the House. As it is, anyone intervening in the debate feels under a certain constraint and restraint. He has his eyes on the clock, because he knows that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, an hon. Member is almost obliged to make a broad speech rather

than a narrower one but one of great importance to his own area.
I shall make a few remarks which cover not only my own constituency, which is affected by these changes, but also a general problem affecting many other constituencies. I am thinking of the heart areas of our big cities. As a result of these boundary changes, the number of constituencies which now exist in the central parts of cities—certainly of London, but also of the great provincial cities—is about to be greatly reduced.
It will be said that the argument for arithmetical equality inevitably dictates that the representation in older inner city areas should decline. Their populations have been declining as people have moved out to other areas—to new towns, to expanding towns, and so on. The argument of arithmetical equality in terms of constituency representation dictates that the growing areas must have an increase and the declining areas a decrease.
I do not propose in general to quarrel with that argument, because it is virtually irrefutable. However, in making its proposals the Commission is allowed a considerable margin. Under the rules which have been adopted, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own electoral quota, which is different from that of England. Most of us would agree that in the past the Commission has given a slight weighting of representation in favour of rural areas or has taken account of other factors, as it is entitled to do; so it is not the slave of arithmetical equality.
Among the factors of which this Commission should have taken account and of which I hope a future Commission will take account is the need to give special weighting to the inner areas of great cities. I argue this on two grounds. First, our social thinking in recent years has come to recognise that the inner areas of big cities have problems which are out of scale with those of other areas. In the last few years we have defined housing priority areas and educational priority areas, areas in which the urban programme would apply. The common core of this priority area approach is the fact that in these areas there are far greater problems than those existing elsewhere. There are problems of poverty—environmental poverty to an extreme degree, real personal poverty which the measures


taken yesterday will certainly not alleviate. There is also the problem of immigration. All these problems come together in the priority areas in the inner part of big cities.
It is strange that our redistributive arrangements for cities should seem to be moving in the very opposite direction to our recogniton of priority areas in terms of social policy and allocation of resources. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that the size of the electorate made no difference. I invite him to come to Tower Hamlets and see the great problems that Members of Parliament have to face there. They are problems of squatters, of homeless people, of a large concentration of families with great problems, and of local authorities whose resources are stretched to the utmost. It is paradoxical that these very areas, which in the past have admittedly been somewhat overrepresented in terms of population, have become under-represented in the new constituencies which have been formed. The quota for England is little more than 58,000, but wherever we look in the new areas of our cities there is tendency to find new constituencies being recommended whose size is above the English constituency quota, whereas throughout the rest of the country there are constituencies which are far smaller and whose problems do not even begin to match the scale of those that the inner areas have to face.
I certainly do not argue that there should be any sharp departure from the arithmetical rule. I am not saying that even areas under great stress should be so favoured that they have an extra Member of Parliament where this would not be justified in terms of the electoral quota. I am saying that if the Boundary Commission had had its attention drawn to the need to make sure that these areas of great stress were not under-represented, then it is almost certain that the Commission could not have recommended that there should be two or three Members of Parliament in those areas where at present there are three or four.
I conclude by urging on the Minister who is to wind up the debate, ideally to withdraw these Orders, to think again and to present some new ones. However, if the Government cannot do that, let them for heaven's sake think about

these areas with great problems since they could become major problem areas in our social life in the years ahead. Let them see whether they can build some reasonable principle of weighting into whatever rules the Boundary Commission has to operate in future.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. If speeches are reasonably brief, as they have been so far, I should be able to call everybody who wishes to speak.

7.12 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity of making a brief contribution to the discussion. I wish to make a minor constituency point but a point with some general relevance. I apologise that I was not able to be present during the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). He has, however, been kind enough to keep me fully apprised of his point of view. I have very great sympathy with his case, and it is most unfortunate that the point that he argues so forcefully was not able to be decided in any court.
In the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea the recommendation that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from three to two was regarded with consternation by members of all parties. A two-day hearing was held in which the inspector was exceedingly thorough and he was kind enough to give us the full text of his report. The report said in the strongest terms that the Boundary Commission should revert to its original recommendation, namely, that we should continue to be represented by three Members. He added a rider that if the Commission were not prepared to leave us with three Members to represent the Borough, the boundary should be the Cromwell Road instead of the zigzag frontier which had been put forward by the Commission.
I found convincing the reasons given in the inspector's recommendation that the Cromwell Road should mark the boundary. By adopting such a frontier the Borough would be divided into more equal numbers. Indeed, the Cromwell Road in recent years has become the natural frontier. It has now a six-lane highway and is exceptionally busy at all


hours of the day and night. To divide the Borough by reference to the road system is already normal practice because the existing boundaries, which are recognisable and easily identified, are the Fulham Road and Holland Park Avenue. Therefore, it would seem natural that the Cromwell Road should form the boundary. In any event Chelsea, although ambitious enough now to extend itself even to take in Earls Court, cannot claim that it extends right the way up to High Street, Kensington.
The Commissioners rejected the first and also the second recommendation of the inspector and said that, in spite of their sympathy with the latter recommendation, they could not adopt the Cromwell Road as the frontier because it did not follow old-established ward boundaries. But the borough council has already in hand a scheme for re-warding in the borough. One change which is virtually certain among the other changes which will result from the study is that the Earls Court ward will be divided along the Cromwell Road. The considerations affecting the parliamentary constituency boundaries are, of course, just as strong in regard to local authority ward boundaries.
I do not know how quickly the rewarding of the whole borough can be brought into effect, but the simple decision to divide the Earls Court ward along the Cromwell Road is a matter that could well be completed by the end of this year. So that here is an example of a boundary being brought in as a result of these Orders which is already virtually obsolete. I believe that there are other instances which can be adduced where changes have taken place since the Boundary Commission has reported, which have already made the recommendations controversial.
It is understandable in the situation inherited by the Home Office that they should have resisted amendments up to the present time. I support what they are doing in taking the Commission's recommendations as a block. But it would be a blunder if Parliament were to establish the recommendations of the Boundary Commission where they are already obsolete without making it easy for minor and uncontroversial changes to be made afterwards as quickly as possible.

I therefore welcome the Home Secretary's expression of sympathy with this point of view and in particular his statement that where particular ward changes were in progress the Commission would be able to initiate changes in parliamentary boundaries also.
I wish to add a note of haste to the proceedings. It is most confusing for an electorate to find itself in a completely new situation, particularly where constituency boundaries have been established for many decades. In order to minimise the uncertainty and confusion which will be inevitable where long-established boundaries have been changed, may we ask the Home Office—or whoever is responsible for the pace of these things—that subsequent changes should be made as expeditiously as possible, and that wherever possible the Commission's findings should be made known within a few weeks.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I promise to be brief, but in Scotland there are particular problems of geography and I propose to deal with some of them.
I find this an extremely uncomfortable debate. In the way this matter has been presented to the House, there has been no feeling on the part of the Government Front Bench of any burning sense of righting wrongs. Indeed, we have sensed an uneasy feeling among hon. Members opposite and we have seen signs on the Government Front Bench of a little piece of petty political vindictiveness. All honour to hon. Gentlemen opposite who also have sensed this and who have displayed their own discomfort by arguing the case for withdrawing the Orders.
When, earlier today, we were debating points of order and seeking to move to adjourn the debate, we were asking that one of two things should happen. We were asking either that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland should seek modifications of the Orders so as to bring the situation up to date, or we were seeking to delay this matter until such time as the local government boundaries were decided. This is not an irrelevant factor. It is written into the 1949 and 1954 Acts, as well as in other Acts of Parliament. This is why we postponed the changes. We


were right then and I suspect that there is this discomfort in the debate because many hon. Members opposite recognise the fact.
While this pettiness may have been true of the Home Secretary, on the other hand, I have no doubt, with the typical generosity of Scotland, that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State will recognise the need, if anything, for postponement of action and the withdrawal of the Order in the case of Scotland. We have peculiar geographical problems in Scotland because of size. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) covers 8,000 square miles. The constituency of Orkney and Shetland probably covers even more square miles, although mainly of water. There are thus special reasons why we should apply geographical considerations and not simply fulfil the electoral quotas in terms of Scottish constituencies.
For example, Ross and Cromarty has 27,000 electors on the 1970 predictions, according to the document we saw today, while the Western Isles constituency has 23,000, Orkney and Shetland 25,000, Caithness and Sutherland 28,000 and Banff 31,000. These are all very small constituencies, not only in United Kingdom terms but also in Scottish terms, but there are geographical reasons for it. An area of 8,000 square miles is a very large one to get round, but that is the great difficulty in Scotland. Precisely because we have a number of such constituencies, inevitably their electorates are very small in total.
This factor, however, also affects the nature of the electoral quota as applied to other areas. I do not think that this point has been taken properly into consideration, but it is the kind of thing which hon. Members understand better and should get the opportunity to examine and consider. This is the kind of argument which one would have been able to deploy detail by detail if we had been given the proper opportunity to examine these proposals by debate. I shall not go into the consequences of this situation but I am adducing it as a reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland should withdraw his own Order, which would enable us to examine this matter properly.
The situation caused by the existence of constituencies with small electorates means that, in the central valleys and areas of Scotland, a certain pressure is felt. For example, at the next election my constituency will probably have twice the number of electors of the Secretary of State in Moray and Nairn or the Under-Secretary in North Angus and Mearns. Because of this situation, we get anomalies. For example, we get anomaly in Midlothian and West Lothian, the one with 77,000 electors, according to the prediction on the 1970 figures, and the other with 72,000, giving a total for the two constituencies of 150,000. Yet that area will still have only two Members of Parliament although in terms of electoral quota there should be three.
Then there is the case of Renfrewshire. It was even stated in the Boundary Commission's report that Renfrewshire was almost sufficiently large for five constituencies on the electoral quota, but it gave as the reason for not advocating that there should be five constituencies the present local government boundaries, which the Commission did not want to cut across. We can still, therefore, get these very large discrepancies and anomalies of size, partly conditioned by existing local government boundaries. That factor, too, should be taken into consideration.
One can compare North Angus and Mearns, with a total electorate, on 1970 predictions, of 83,000, with Dundee, which has two Members representing 130,000 voters. Both cases are above the quota, however, because of the importance of local government boundaries. Geographical factors, tied in with other aspects such as local government boundaries, are producing, because of the presence of small-electorate constituencies in Scotland, these gross anomalies, and the situation has not been adequately examined. I see no evidence in the Boundary Commission's report which suggests that this aspect, which is within our knowledge, has been examined by the Commission, and it should be examined in detail by this House.
We have accepted and written into the Acts, particularly the 1949 Act, the importance of local government boundaries. We have written into those Acts most of the geographical factors as constituting


a reason for departing from the strict language of Section 6 of Schedule 2. Equally important is the passage of time and development, which has become particularly important because of the history of these Orders.
These Orders were postponed, for good reason—because of forthcoming local government boundary adjustments. Because of that postponement, if they are now implemented in this total fashion they will be nine or ten years out of date. The Boundary Commission was bound to make its adjudications on the basis of the 1965 figures. It was not at that point allowed to predict. This should have been the prerogative or the discretion of a new Boundary Commission, with the modification phrase written in for the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I suggest that the passage of time, with the consequent developments and changes, is equally important with the local government conditions and geographical conditions. Yet local government borders and geographical conditions were the only two factors which the Commission was entitled to look at. It is up to the Government to take into cognisance the third factor of change and development and realise that a 1965 analysis is totally inadequate for 1974 or 1975—if, indeed, the present Government last as long as that, and after yesterday I doubt whether they will.
As I have promised, I want to deal with my own circumstances. The Home Secretary adduced the argument that these Orders must be accepted in tow because they were produced by an impartial body, but that does not hold water because two impartial bodies were involved. The Commissioners produced the first Boundary Commission Report and then there was another impartial report by the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the Commission's report. Competent gentlemen were employed in each case and the Assistant Commissioner was no less impartial than the Boundary Commission. Yet he rejected its report. In turn, the Boundary Commissioners rejected his report. I suggest that this is precisely why the Secretary of State for Scotland should look again at the matter.
Who is to judge between the Boundary Commission and the Assistant Commissioner? I see no evidence that this

point has been properly considered. The Secretary of State backs the Boundary Commission on this matter for the reasons which the Commission itself gives for rejecting the Assistant Commissioner's report. He gave me that information when I wrote to him. This is an interesting aspect. I want to refer to paragraphs 43 and 46 on page 15 of the Boundary Commission's report, I remind the House that the first point was that the Boundary Commission recognised that there was a case for almost five constituencies in Renfrewshire were it not for local government problems. We are now envisaging the situation in 1973, 1974 or 1975. I suggest that by then it will not be a case of Renfrewshire being almost sufficient for five constituencies, but, indeed of being more than sufficient for five.
The second point is where, in paragraph 43, the Boundary Commission said:
Our recommendations, therefore, were confined to proposals for reducing the disparities in the 1965 electorates".
The Commission could not interfere with the local government boundaries. Therefore, it was concerned only with reducing the disparities in the 1965 electorates.
When, however, it came to examine the Assistant Commissioner's report rejecting that analysis, in paragraph 46 the Commission said:
… while on the 1965 figures of the electorate, the objectors' proposals gave a more balanced distribution of the electorate".
So it was saying, first, that its own task was to produce a balanced figure to reduce the disparities.
The Commission then said that the public inquiry came up with a more balanced picture. The point that I am making will be seen. The Commission have driven a horse and cart through its reason for rejection. It goes on to say why it discards the findings of the public inquiry—because it cuts across the local government boundaries. It said:
… this would only be temporary, as development was taking place in West Renfrewshire which … was to have the largest electorate.
The Boundary Commission is saying that it rejects the public inquiry despite the fact that it would produce a more balanced division of the electorate because of predicted population change.
I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland must look at that very closely. It seems that the argument that has been given for rejection of the public inquiry cuts across the remit to which the Commissioners must be bound. I am surprised, therefore, that the Secretary of State has backed the rejection, not for any good reasons of his own, but for the reasons that are given in the report. I think that these reasons require careful examination. I believe that the reasons are wrong. The Under-Secretary must withdraw the Order tonight in order to examine the position closely.
That was the main point that I wanted to put. I do not want to go on to the many other arguments, such as the question of size. Either we accept the population and demographic prediction as part of the factors, as the Boundary Commission does, or we do not. If we do not, the public inquiry produced a better balance. If we do, we will end up by bringing in the future population development, and that in Renfrew, West will add between 18,000 and 20,000 electorate over and above the natural growth because of the Glasgow overspill situation. We will have an extremely unbalanced situation by 1974 with three of the four constituencies having roughly 60,000 and the fourth, in Renfrew, West, having nearly 80,000.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). I liked most of his speech. However, it is not true that there are no more difficulties when a constituency becomes bigger. I have one "surgery" at one end of my constituency which lasts about five hours on average. I have another at the other end where I am lucky if two or three people turn up. This is because there are real problems within one area.
Apart from the human point, I must ask the Under-Secretary to look closely at what seems to be almost a breach of the legal duties of the Commission in using this argument as a reason for rejecting the public inquiry.

7.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): With the permission of the House, it might be helpful if I intervene in the debate at this early stage to say a few words about the

Scottish Order. I emphasise that I am merely intervening and in no sense winding up.
Apart from answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), I do not intend to go into the actual circumstances in which redistribution is being considered. This is part of every hon. Member's speech, and the proper place to deal with it is in the winding-up speech. I should like to confine myself—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate this—to the remarks that he made and the particular points that he raised concerning Scotland.
I should like, first, to take the opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did, to express Scotland's thanks to Mr. Speaker and to the Deputy Chairman of the Scottish Commission, Lord Kilbrandon, and to its members for the work that they did in producing this document. All the criticisms this evening of particular aspects of the recommendations concerning particular constituencies—this applies equally to England and Wales as to Scotland—are largely criticisms of detail. I am sure that all hon. Members accept that the Commission went about its task in a constructive way, fulfilling the duties laid upon it. I am sure that we all pay tribute to the way that it has carried out its duties.
I certainly consider that the Scottish Report is a well-reasoned document. However, I accept that in certain instances, as the public inquiries showed, many people had reservations about what was proposed.
I should like to deal with the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West concerning his constituency and then deal with some of the wider issues relating to Scotland as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission laid out in some detail the reasons why it rejected the advice or opinion given by the Assistant Commissioner who conducted this inquiry.
Under the legislation, the Boundary Commission is not obliged to accept recommendations from the Assistant Commissioner. It is important to say that straightaway. It is not obliged to do so, although obviously it can take them into account. Indeed, the case raised by the hon. Gentleman—I appreciate his


personal interest—is the only one in Scotland where the Assistant Commissioner's Report was not accepted by the Boundary Commission. In the past, in reappraising boundaries we have never had as many public inquiries as we have this time. Equally, there is no precedent why the Boundary Commission should be bound by what the Assistant Commissioner may report as the result of an inquiry. Therefore, I believe that the Boundary Commission has behaved and acted perfectly properly and there is nothing wrong with the action that was taken.
It is important to look at the points raised in the Boundary Commission's reasons. It gives four reasons, the main reason being the fourth on which the hon. Gentleman touched only briefly. That is the question whether it is right that a constituency boundary should straddle a local government boundary. This is the point which bore most heavily of all in the Commission's conclusions.

Mr. Buchan: I think that I might save the hon. Gentleman some trouble. My argument was not dealing with the rightness or wrongness of the arguments but with the method of approach. It is so seriously faulty that I think it should be re-examined and the Order withdrawn. Other arguments are involved, some of which I accept.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That will save time. I wanted to demonstrate to the House—I know that the hon. Gentleman wished to be brief—that the Boundary Commission reached its conclusions in a properly reasoned way.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's main concern relates to future developments in population in his constituency and to whether in future projections the balance of the four constituencies will be fair. This is a matter of opinion. The Assistant Commissioner expressed one opinion. The Commission weighed against it the other considerations set out in the Report and came to the conclusion that it did.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was five years ago that this examination of the constituencies began. If one makes an assessment of the boundaries suggested by the Commission and those suggested by the Assistant Commissioner as a result of the inquiry, it is interesting to

compare the results. Under the Commission's proposals, as at 1970 the distribution of the electorate among the four constituencies in question would be as follows: East Renfrewshire, 59,600; West Renfrewshire, 60,200; Greenock and Port Glasgow, 62,500; Paisley, 66,000. In fact, Paisley would be the same under either proposal. If the objector's case had been sustained and accepted by the Commission, East Renfrewshire would have remained the same at 59,600; West Renfrewshire would have been 66,200; and Greenock would have been as low as 56,500. Even with projected development and population expansions, the Commission's recommendation will result in a more equitable distribution of the electorate, taking into account all these other factors. I therefore do not believe that there is a case for my right hon. Friend accepting the view that these proposals need to be re-examined.
I accept that in an area like Scotland where there are problems of geographic distribution and communication one cannot have the same electoral quota for constituencies regardless of where they are. The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency, which is a scattered constituency. I have a very much smaller electorate than has the hon. Gentleman, but it would probably take me longer to cross my constituency than it would take him to cross his.
Because, in Scotland, for good reasons we have at one end of the scale a number of small constituencies, it means that at the other end we have a number of larger constituencies which push up the average size of constituencies. But even if one looks at it that way, one still has to remember, as the Home Secretary said in opening the debate, that in Scotland as a whole we enjoy a lower average electoral quota than one finds in England and Wales.
I believe that the Commission's proposals are effective, and that despite what the hon. Gentleman said it has done its best to strike a balance between the small geographically scattered constituencies and the more populated industrial areas in central Scotland.
For the purpose of my argument I am using figures based on the 1970 register which takes account of the increase in the electorate resulting from the lowering


of the voting age. Whereas under the existing arrangements we have 20 constituencies with an electorate of fewer than 40,000, 29 constituencies in the 40,000 to 60,000 band, and 22 constituencies with electorates in excess of 60,000, under the Commission's proposals there will be only 10 constituencies with fewer than 40,000 electors—the number of small constituencies with fewer than 40,000 electors will be halved—48 constituencies in the 40,000 to 60,000 band, as against 29 at present, and of the 13 constituencies with an electorate in excess of 60,000, only two will have more than 70,000 electors. This demonstrates that the Commission has done its job effectively and fairly.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the constituencies of Midlothian and West Lothian which occupy a special part of the Commission's report. For various reasons with which I do not want to deal now, the Commission found considerable difficulty in trying to set up a third constituency to reduce the size of these constituencies or to produce one which would not straddle the boundaries of large local authorities. In all this there is a fine balance of judgment. On one side the Commission makes a recommendation. On the other side local people, and sometimes even the Assistant Commissioner, come to a different conclusion. As I say, these are finely balanced issues, and I think that in Scotland as a whole the Commission has come to sensible conclusions. The fact that there has been serious controversy in only three areas shows that in general what has been proposed by the Commission is acceptable to people in Scotland. Of course there have been difficulties. Of course the solutions are not perfect in every respect. But I believe that the Commission's proposals for the future pattern of constituencies in Scotland commend themselves to most people in that area.

Mr. William Ross: What is the outlook for these two constituencies, one of which has an electorate of 77,000 and the other one of 72,000, and one of which will increase because of the new town in the area? When will someone put forward a solution to that problem? One could talk about having six constituencies in another part of Scotland in

an effort to strike a balance. Has anyone thought of recognising that there are areas with exceptionally low population densities? One would not dream of denying them representation, but they are in a different position from other areas of Scotland. To provide everybody with roughly the same representation might mean having more than the existing 71 constituencies. How long is this disparity to continue in the area which my hon. Friend and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, represent?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I showed my concern about it. Although objections were raised to the Commission's proposals, none of the objections was followed through to the point of having a public inquiry because it was appreciated by those concerned that there were special circumstances in their areas. The adjustment of this situation will have to await the Boundary Commission's further consideration in the future.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. David Reed: It is a matter of great regret to me personally that for only the second time that I rise to speak in this Chamber it should be on this subject. I say that because should the Orders that we are discussing be accepted without Amendment, as the Home Secretary is suggesting, my constituency would be eliminated. It would be wiped off the map. I refer to the constituency of Sedgefield, in County Durham.
Irrespective of the merits of maintaining my constituency, I hope to demonstrate that in County Durham the Boundary Commission has not only failed, but has failed lamentably, to fulfil its own objectives. I oppose the Order, not because I feel that the Commission can be regarded as anything other than impartial—it is and it must be; in party political terms it must be completely impartial—but because I think, and this is something which nobody has mentioned so far, that the basic objective of the Commission's exercise is to ensure that each person's vote, wherever he or she lives, is worth the same in electing a Member to represent him or her in this House. It is the failure of the Boundary Commission to


achieve just that in the County of Durham that leads me to oppose the Order.
If the Boundary Commission were to succeed, I have a feeling that the result of the exercise should be something like the operation of a surgeon's knife—as precise and exact as that. In the County of Durham, it looks as if a drunken man has rampaged round the country with a blunt axe, lashing out in all directions. In not one part of the county can the Boundary Commission review be regarded as thoroughly satisfactory.
The reason lies basically in the quota system used by the Commission. I accept that it must start from one premise or another. It took the quota system and arrived at the conclusion that a figure of 59,000 would be desirable for a constituency in England. It then applied that to the County of Durham. In the county the electorate had fallen when the Commission began work, due to the creation of the Greater Teesside Council. This meant that by strict mathematical methods, one constituency in Durham had to disappear—that the county's entitlement had to fall from 17 to 16 constituencies. Even accepting that as correct—and even that is disputable—the Commission went on to compound its mistake.
It said categorically in its second periodical report that it ignored the Tyneside seats in Durham in revising the constituency boundaries. This means that about half the Durham seats have been completely left out of its review. The reason for its acting in this way was fair enough; it wanted to take into account possible changes in local government boundaries. But what I do not understand is why, at the same time, the Commission could not apply the same principle to the southern half of the county, which could also be subject to a quite major review should any far-reaching changes be made in our local government structure.
A principle was applied to one half of the county but not to the other. That is the first of the Commission's principles that I question in respect of Durham. The effect is that in respect of the county, the Commission has worked out a quota on the basis of the county as a whole but has implemented it taking into account only half the area

under review—and has done so despite a string of anomalies that it has created from one end of the county to the other.
Fortunately, the regional office of the Labour Party in Newcastle provides good research facilities, and it was able to give me the figures to which the Home Secretary referred today. I can recommend the office for all research work.
The Commission, on the quota system, said that it would try to create constituencies with electorates between 40,000 and 80,000 and would try to concentrate electorates between 50,000 and 70,000; and that even taking into account the greater electorate in Britain in 1970, using the Home Secretary's own figures, the electorates would be between 45,000 and 85,000. It is an indication of the unholy mess that the Commission has made in the County of Durham that almost one-third of the seats are outside the Commission's own target figures.
Two seats are even outside the Commission's absolute maximum figure. Even taking into account the 1970 electorate if these proposals are accepted one constituency in Durham will have an electorate of only 34,000 while another, within seven years, is likely to have an electorate of over 90,000. There is no doubt that this could have been appreciated by the Commission; these figures were available to it. Yet, for some reason, it proceeded to ignore them. Any review that fails to meet its own objectives to a factor of one-third-which is what has happened in Durham—is, to put it mildly, a highly unsatisfactory one. There are even more inconsistencies, in fact the more I looked at the White Paper—Cmnd. 4084—the more I was amazed.
Another Boundary Commission principle is to take into account foreseeable growth in constituency electorates. It said this categorically. In fact, it said, in the case of the new towns:
We had in mind that new towns had been a major cause of growth of electorates in some constituencies since the last review.
The new town of Newton Aycliffe lies within the area of my constituency and the Darlington Rural District Council which the Commission proposes to transfer to the new constituency of Bishop Auckland. The electorate of the latter constituency is already in excess of 70,000.


In Newton Aycliffe the proposed growth of population over the next seven years is 20,000 and if, in normal terms, that means a growth of some 15,000 in the electorate, it means that in seven years' time the new Bishop Auckland constituency will have an electorate of 85,000plus—and if growth is affected elsewhere in that constituency, it may approach 90,000. What appears to me to be wrong is that the Commission has stated categorically the principle of taking into account foreseeable growths in the electorate, but in the County of Durham has completely ignored it.
Another principle is that of local ties. The Commission said that it considered that local ties were of more importance than strict mathematical equality in determining constituency boundaries. I accept that principle, because there is no doubt that my constituency of Sedgefield is a coherent parliamentary constituency. Three rural district councils are involved. Only one part of the constituency—Billingham Urban District—is really part of Greater Teesside and must be treated as such in terms of parliamentary representation. Otherwise this is a coherent parliamentary constituency. The administrative, economic, social and political ties within it all make sense. Yet the Boundary Commission is threatening to split it asunder in its recommendation. I bow to no one in my knowledge of the constituency, I know the travel-to-work distances; I know the employment and transport patterns. They all set up a strong series of local ties. But the Commission does not accept that.
What makes the situation even more ludicrous are the Commission's proposals for constituencies in surrounding areas. I want to consider the constituencies among which the Commission proposes that the various sections of my constituency should be split up. What I have to say applies particularly to the constituency of Easington, where the Commission proposes to link two areas which at present have no ties whatsoever in any sense. It is proposing to link a strong mining community and the new town of Peterlee with the urban commuter areas of Eaglescliffe and Egglescliffe—one to the north and one to the south of Teesside, and both split by the urban area of Teesside in the middle. This would create a great sausage down the eastern

side of England, and it would link two areas which have nothing in common.
The same consideration applies to the new constituency of Bishop Auckland. The reason for the Commission's proposal is that it is stuck with its decision in respect of the rest of the County of Durham and has taken the easy way out, in terms of looking at a map and saying "Hang the consequence for the people concerned."
I should like to question one or two other premises of the Boundary Commission, particularly the system of local inquiries that it employed. Surely, it cannot be good in a democratic society that any organisation should act as judge and jury in its own cause. This, however, is what the Boundary Commission does. I accept that it has done a good job and has been impartial, but surely it is stretching impartiality too far to expect it to do this. I should like the Home Secretary to look at this again before another Boundary Commission review is undertaken.
Another question which I should have liked to ask the Home Secretary is why one county, Oxfordshire particularly, was given an extra parliamentary seat as a result of a growth in electorate of 13,752 from the time that the Commission started work to the publication of its second periodical report. Over that same period, the growth of the Durham electorate was more than 78,000, yet no extra parliamentary seat is given to Durham.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Boundary Commission has botched the job in County Durham. Whatever the Home Secretary may have said earlier, there can be no doubt that he has been well aware of these facts and has refused to do anything about them. He was made aware of them in a 2,000-word report that I sent to him on 1st October. Since then, many other representations have been made to him by people who are concerned in my constituency. These have not been party political concerns, but everything from women's institutes to working men's clubs, from old age pensioners' associations and community associations to trade unions and miners' lodges. The people of Sedgefield were trying to let the right hon. Gentleman know that they wanted to maintain the identity of their


constituency. Do the wishes of the people concerned matter to the right hon. Gentleman? It would seem very much that they do not.
I understood that the object of having a Boundary Commission was to ensure that each elector's vote is worth the same in electing a Member to serve him in Parliament. The Commission's failure to do that in County Durham is the reason that I question these Orders. Implementation of their proposals without Amendment would mean that there would be one constituency in County Durham with an electorate of 34,000, four well in excess of 70,000 and one which would push up to 90,000 within a very short time. This means that a vote in one half of the county would be worth only half the same vote in another half of the county.
Does the Minister of State not realise that what he is doing is in effect, devaluing the votes of a large section of the County Durham electorate? Because he is doing that, I must oppose the Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I repeat the appeal which has been made for short speeches? It will be just possible to call all those who wish to speak, provided that speeches are brief.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I will try to be very brief and will concentrate mainly on a local point concerning Sheffield and a constituency point concerning both Heeley and Hallam. First, may I make one issue completely clear, in view of what has been said—that the two Conservative Members in Sheffield are very much involved in the recommendations in the Order which is before us today. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) has been with me listening to this debate throughout. We should have liked to support the decision tonight but we have reservations and we would very much like assurances of greater flexibility from the Minister of State.
We consider it right that there should be an independent review body, and we think it wrong that whatever Government is in power should be able to devise a way, for whatever reason, of not accepting these recommendations in full. The last

Administration are to be condemned, and have rightly been condemned, including the last Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for his interpretation of the Representation of the People Act. His Bill was rejected in another place and we had the remarkable performance of an Order being voted down by the Home Secretary's own supporters, using their majority—hypocrisy and a bad example to the county which at the time was almost unequalled.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East talked about the impartiality of the review body. This must be the case. I doubt whether we in this House, when our own constituencies are involved, even collectively, let alone individually, can claim equal impartiality. I support the view that the body should be independent of this House and not at the mercy of the Government in power.
For that reason, my hon. Friend and I support the basic recommendations in the Orders. But the fact that we support them does not mean that we do not have grave reservations about the recommendations which concern Sheffield. In challenging these proposals, it is indelicate and unwise for a Member to complain of recommendations of the Commission if they add to his constituency areas which have had strong Conservative support, namely, Dore and Nether Edge. But the recommendations of the Commission increase the electorate in my constituency from 60,000 in 1959, 58,000 in 1964, 56,000 in 1956 and 59,000 in 1970 to 69,000 as published in the recommendations of the Commission, Command 4084. Now, according to the papers in the Library, the number is to go up on the new basis from 69,000 to 73,544. If, however, it is indelicate to comment on the possible increase of support in his own constituency, it is reasonable for a Member to comment on the question of size.
I do not want to comment on how the report was received in Sheffield, or on the appeal against the recommendations by Conservative representatives in the city. But this appeal was based on community interest, geographical considerations, means of communication within the constituencies and natural boundaries between the Heeley and Hallam constituencies.
Mr. Paul Curtis-Bennett, Q.C., in his report of the inquiry following the appeal, said:
These contentions were supported in considerable detail in the Inquiry and despite the cross-examination which was directed to diminishing their significance, I was left with the impression that there was a good deal of force in them.
That was his comment on the case put forward by the Conservatives in Sheffield. The appeal was rejected because, he said,
… the case for counter-proposals did not establish regions of sufficient compelling character to justify the displacements of the Commission's proposals—which are themselves workable and in contormity with proper principles by them.
This is the point: the appeal was marginally rejected, so the verdict is before us today in the Order.
The criteria on which the original decision was reached have changed. The population has changed considerably in different parts of Sheffield. The expansion in Sheffield that was forecast three or four years ago—a separate report will be sent to the Home Secretary in the near future—has not taken place. An increase in population in Mosborough is not now likely, possibly due to the recent legislation affecting intermediate areas.
The then valid arguments to justify Heeley adding a ward—namely, Intake in the south-east—no longer applies. This ward comes from the Attercliffe division. There is now no valid case for Heeley to lose the Dore and Nether Edge wards to Hallam, as there is not a valid case for Millhouse to go from Hallam to Heeley. There is, indeed, a strong case for the Boundary Commission to make a quick review of its recommendations concerning Sheffield based on what has happened in the area since its conclusions were originally given in its initial report.
The Home Secretary outlined the thoroughness with which the Commission had done its work, and I do not dispute that. However, its arguments for Dore remaining in Heeley are based, first, on community group interests which must be taken into account. Secondly, it is acknowledged that Dore is cut off by Doremoor from Eccleshall. Thirdly, Dore, Totley and Bradway are communities connected with wards like Intake, Dore and Nether Edge. I will not reiterate all the arguments concerned with

these areas because they are well known. But what is of greater importance is the fact that the marginal argument for not changing Hallam and Heeley might have been accepted if the criteria had been different.
In Chapter II of Cmnd. 4084, there is a reference to Rules 4 and 5. Those Rules embrace two principles of representative Government: equal representation, Rule 5 and territorial representation, Rule 4. There was some agreement between the main two political parties over ward distribution in Sheffield, providing a large number of marginal wards so as to increase local interest in politics. This same principle was discussed between the parties, but there was no similar sort of agreement about political balance over the constituency redistribution.
In terms of political balance, if Sheffield is looked at as a whole, there is a good case for the division being such as to provide under normal voting conditions two Conservative seats as against four Socialist seats. The position in Heeley and Hallam is worse than it was in 1965. At that time there were 127,000 voters in both constituencies, while now there are 139,000. This means that the Conservatives have roughly 70,000 electorate per Member here while the Socialists have 62,000 per Member.
Political balance should be accepted as one of the criteria, but certainly not the overriding criteria which the Boundary Commission must consider when presenting recommendations for a borough containing a number of seats. I therefore now ask the Government to review the rules and the criteria.
The Home Secretary spoke of the next constituency boundary review after changes in local government and ward boundaries, but this could be a decade away. It means that no changes will occur for that length of time after these proposed changes. I urge the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to comment on the need for more frequent area reviews. We must keep under constant review projected population changes and compare them with performance, the position in Sheffield providing a classic argument to demonstrate this.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that this problem must be looked at


city by city. The present method of review is unsatisfactory and I urge the Government to reconsider the points that have been made in the debate so that we have a more flexible system than that indicated by the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I shall be brief because a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. The points made by my hon. Friends in 1969 on this issue are still valid. If anything, they are stronger. We pointed out, first, that it was not in the best interests of the country to go through the upheaval of these changes, affecting constituencies throughout Britain, and then repeat the exercise shortly afterwards as a result of changes due to local government reform.
We are considering massive changes: 322 major and 88 minor ones, 410 out of 630 constituencies, or changes in two-thirds of the constituencies. The Government must pay careful attention to this.
The second point we made was that the Report was out of date. It is now almost six years since the proposals began to be formulated. The Home Secretary seemed to shrug off the possibility of local government reform as something that might happen but only in the far distant future.
Is the Home Secretary aware that in recent months the Secretary of State for Wales—hon. Members can read yesterday's Western Mail has expressed the hope that there will be legislation on local government reform in Wales in the 1971–72 Parliament? If that is so, it is an added reason to support the views that were expressed on this subject by my hon. Friends when they pointed out that no action should be taken and that the issue should be studied afresh by the Commission.
The Home Secretary said that the last changes were made 16 years ago and that it was not right that the next General Election should be fought on the old boundaries. It is equally foolish to change at this time and have a further upheaval shortly as a result of local government reform.
The Home Secretary said that the Commission was impartial. I do not question

that. However, are its findings sacrosanct? Surely Parliament, having taken the advice of this body, has the final right to decide what is best for the nation. We have the final judgment. If every Government accepted every report of every commission and committee that was set up, life would be very much easier for hon. Members, but it would be less democratic and manifestly unjust to the people we represent.
Seven major recommendations are proposed for the Rhondda. The two Rhondda seats will become one, and I need not say that this proposal is opposed by almost every organisation and political party in the Rhondda, including the Rhondda Borough Council and the Glamorgan County Council.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned another serious factor which seems to have been neglected by the Commission in reaching its decisions. He pointed out that there are areas of great social problem. The Rhondda is one of these. It is a tragedy that at a time when the Glamorgan County Council and the Rhondda Borough Council have set in motion an inquiry to anticipate the position of the Rhondda as far ahead as 2001, it should be proposed that the two constituencies should be merged into one.
Local government reform is badly needed. In one area of my constituency, in Trebanog, one side of the street is part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and on the other side is Rhondda, East. A little further along, I walk into Tonyrefail and I again pass through the constituency of Pontypridd. I travel on through Gilfach Goch and on the left I pass the constituency of Ogmore and then again on the right is the Pontypridd constituency. In another street at the remote end I come again to Rhondda, East. Indeed, I travel some 10 miles in order to get to one small street of my constituency. If that is not a reason for parliamentary reform in order to get these things put right before the boundaries are changed, I do not know what is.
The 1967 proposals for Wales suggested the possibility of all this area becoming part of Rhondda borough. If that were so and these proposals went


through, we should have the situation, within a very short time, of having the whole thing looked at again and, possibly, two constituencies being re-created—a complete upheaval twice over for no apparent reason. The Rhondda electorate in 1968 was 65,429, and in 1970 it was 68,187, an increase of nearly 3,000 in that short time. Yet a seat is to be taken from the Rhondda as a result of the merger while Cardiff's constituencies are to be increased, with an electorate in Cardiff, North of 26,621—less than Rhondda, East at present. How stupid can one get? This is something that no Boundary Commission can justify. It should be turned down out of hand.
I sincerely believe that there should be a complete re-examination of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, that it should be done by the Commission in the light of the changes that have occurred in population since it examined the matter last, and that there should also be a weighting for areas which have social problems which are badly in need of attention. This process need not take too long. It is my opinion that the Boundary Commission could well report before the end of this Parliament and, if so, decisions could be taken on an up-to-date report.
I regret that the orders have been tabled in the way they have, which has prevented a vote on the relative merits of the proposals for individual constituencies. The Home Secretary justified this by referring to the form in which they were presented by his predecessor 12 months ago, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out that, in the Redistribution of Seats (No. 2) Bill which he presented, each change proposed was presented separately, giving the right to hon. Members to discuss it, table Amendments and vote accordingly. That has not happened on this occasion.
I remind the House that that Bill was passed by this House and that it was the decision of another place, prompted and encouraged by the then Opposition, which prevented it from becoming law. I believe that it is in that same spirit that these Orders have been presented in the manner and in the hurried way in which they have been put forward today. For these reasons, I shall be pleased

and proud to join my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against them.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is something of a daunting task to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) who has brought all the fervour of a revivalist meeting to the Chamber, but when one looks at what we are debating one must conclude that an awful lot of humbug has been talked today. It is only a year since those of us who were not then in the House read with disgust, and talked to our constituents about, the proposals of the last Government. People of all political opinions were ashamed to think that Parliament was being debased by the antics of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is about time that we got away from the particularities and started to look at the generalities because the duty we have is surely the duty to the wider issues of democracy and justice and the things to which the hon. Member for Rhondda, East, referred so fervently.
I was moved to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by several things. The first was the bogus fillibuster we had this afternoon when, for almost an hour, we had points or order that were not points of order. We had absolute nonsense, and why? It was because hon. Members opposite, although they have legitimate interests and legitimate grievances, were suffering also from a severe attack of sour grapes. They remembered what happened a year ago. It is our duty to the people to cut across sectional and trivial and individual interests. I speak as one who constituency will be completely carved up if these recommendations are implemented. [Hon. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite need not worry. I shall be back.
It is right that we should consider geographical interests, and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) made some very good points about that. It is nonsense that we should perpetuate a parliamentary system which allows my constituency to have nearly 100,000 electors while Birmingham, Ladywood, which is only 20 miles away, has only 18,000. That system must be ended and it is humbug to suggest that we should go through these things detail by detail, particular by particular.
It is also humbug to suggest that we should await local government changes, whatever they might be and whenever they might be. There will always be anomalies in any electoral system, however devised, and I would not claim that the recommendations before us will produce perfection, because of course they will not. There is always room for change. There is always legitimate opportunity to challenge and dispute particular instances. Nevertheless, we should look at this as a general pattern and it would be a manifest injustice foisted upon the people by their Parliament if we rejected these Orders tonight and allowed the system of 1970 to operate in 1975.
We have a duty to set a lead, and in voting for these Orders I shall feel that I am casting a vote for British democracy, for a parliamentary system which means a great deal to me and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right thing to do is to support these Orders and to make sure that in future when recommendations are made they are quickly implemented and not brushed under the carpet for narrow sectarian interests.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I would much prefer to listen to the sound, sensible comments, even if they were in revivalist tones, of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) than listen to the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) who seemed to me to be intoxicated with his own verbosity.
The Home Secretary this afternoon seemed terribly embarrassed after the thorough thrashing which he received at the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I think it has now been realised on the Conservative benches that the arguments of my right hon. Friend were unanswerable. The Home Secretary's discomfiture is to the credit of my right hon. Friend. He was uncomfortable because he knew that he had no answer to my right hon. Friend's arguments. I hope that the Secretary of State has noted that the criticisms of this Motion have not been confined to this side of the House. Indeed, a number of hon. Members opposite who had harsh things to say 12 months ago are now

amending their views because they have arrived at the frontiers of understanding on this issue.
During this debate, we have heard mention of British democracy. One of the most incredible paradoxes that we had was when the Home Secretary opened his speech by delivering a small eulogy on the subject of parliamentary democracy in this country. Yet he is the author of a Motion which does a great deal to damage parliamentary democracy, and my right hon. Friend pointed out that fact this afternoon.
I come to a criticism of both Front Benches. When will they face up to that incredible undemocratic organisation a couple of miles from here known as the City of London which, so long as it exists, will be a blot on British democracy? That has to go, and I hope that the House of Commons one day will have the courage to do away with it.
I should like a reply to this question. May I assume that henceforth the report of any Commission, no matter which Commission—whatever it says—will be rubber-stamped by the present Tory Government? I should like an answer to that question. Otherwise, the Government will stand in more discredit than they did after yesterday's announcement.
The Home Secretary found himself in a terrible difficulty when my right hon. Friend pointed out that in some instances an unbiased, independent Assistant Commissioner gave a different report and a different recommendation from the Commissioner. What is the logic of this? Here we have, on the one hand, the recommendation from the Commissioner and, on the other, quite often contrary suggestions by the Assistant Commissioner. Any kid of 10 would fail his 11-plus examination if he could not answer this question. What does one do in those circumstances? The answer is: examine them both and adopt both of them. But the Government say, "No" They condemn the Assistant Commissioner. He is a terrible person. He has "had his chips". The Commissioner is elevated to the heights of the Archangel Gabriel.
This will not do. Before long we shall have other Commissions' reports. All sorts of matters will come before this House. Will the Government say, as they might have said about the Donovan


Report, "This must be the law; we will not allow anyone to discuss it in detail; this is what the Commission recommends and it must be the law"? This is a very dangerous precedent to establish. This Order is not an omnibus Order; it is a steamroller Order. I regret that a man of the calibre and high standing in British politics of the Home Secretary should be associated with such a disreputable Order.
To some hon. Members opposite, matters like Boundary Commissioners, democracy and the views of local people are things to laugh at; they are amusements. According to them, all one has to do is to kid them for a couple of weeks, tell them that prices will be brought down, and then, when one gets elected, one does the very opposite and shoves up prices. The Conservative Party is adept at that sort of thing. The Tories have been beguiling the British nation for a number of years, and I give them credit for having done it successfully. Their incredible ability would make Sweeney Todd and a few others blush for shame.
What is not fully realised is that the House of Commons could, and would, have looked at other matters affecting constituency boundaries, quite apart from the Boundary Commission's report. This point has been the theme of several speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as from my hon. Friends. We know our areas much more closely than do the members of the Commission, who are concerned primarily with statistics. It is a sad day for British democracy when all we consider is statistics. Statistics are important, and they must be taken into consideration, but not by themselves alone. It is here that the principle of adopting the Commission's report by itself is wrong.
I come to the situation in Ealing. My right hon. Friend selected Ealing as an example to show how this business has gone wrong. I can tell the House quite honestly that the views which I hold on this matter are shared by the Conservative Party in Ealing.

Mr. Marcus Fox: Never.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman says "Never", but his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), sitting next to him, nods his head. If the hon. Member for Shipley looks back

to the Amendment to the Order which I put down in the last Parliament, he will see that the second name against it was that of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). The hon. Gentleman drops his mouth open in astonishment. He will be well advised to keep it shut during the next half hour or so. Not just the political parties but the councillors, Labour councillors and Conservative councillors, all take the view that the London Borough of Ealing ought to have four Parliamentary constituencies.
Let us consider for a moment whether there is any logic in the case which is put. When the Boundary Commission reported, it said that the London Borough of Ealing had a notional entitlement to 3·54 constituencies, but it would have only three. Later, it dealt with another London borough and said that this borough had a notional entitlement to 3·4 constituencies, but it could have four. My colleagues, Labour and Conservative, on the Ealing Borough Council say that this is a load of nonsense.
In a situation like this, it is an expression of real democracy to say that the individual case should be put to the House of Commons so that the House may judge whether the Commissioner is correct, whether the Assistant Commissioner is correct, or whether the political parties and other organisations in the borough concerned are correct. True democracy would say, "Let us have all the arguments, and let the House of Commons, the supreme legislative chamber, decide". Yet that is what the so-called champions of freedom have denied us this afternoon. That is their crime, and it must be made known to the country.
Many other things have been happening in the London Borough of Ealing. We have quite a large housing programme. It was held up by the present incumbents of office in the Ealing Town Hall, but the Labour administration's housing endeavours are now coming to fruition. They were savagely cut by the Tories, but the estates are being built. There was a pause because of the Conservative Party's take-over in Ealing, but there are to be local government elections shortly and we are now hearing noises from the Conservative Party in Ealing that they will suddenly decide to build


even more houses. This will go into their election address. Who knows? They might catch us napping and keep their promises, and if that happens, bang go the Boundary Commission's recommendations again.
We all know in our surgeries the complexities of modern life—housing, people finding difficulty with their pensions, transport problems, particularly in Greater London, and so on. In my own constituency it is even a problem to cross the road, and there are large deputations simply to get a bridge over the Western Avenue, for example. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides have similar problems, which show the remarkable changes in society over the past 20 years. As a result of all these things, the work of the average hard-working M.P. today is much greater than that of his predecessor of 25, 30 or 40 years ago. If there are to be calculations that a borough is entitled to 3·54 constituencies, the figure should automatically be four constituencies.
Our rôle in the difficult circumstances of the House is very important to those who put us here. Because of the complexities of modern life, and the complexities to come, if Members intend to do their job properly, not only must they have more resources but there must be a few more of us. The trend should be towards a larger House rather than a smaller one. I hope that I find support on both sides of the House for that proposition. It is particularly in the context of the M.P.'s future rôle and his relationship with his constituents that I feel it to be a great shame that we were not given an opportunity on the Motion to put to the test of the House of Commons each individual case which has been recommended. That would have been an honourable thing to do, which all of us, irrespective of party, could have defended to our constituents.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I have only one point to make, and because I believe it to be a very valid one I can be very brief. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will forgive me if I do not follow his journeys through Ealing.
Under the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, my constituency of North Down will lose just over 40,000 voters, which is a considerable number. I regret losing them, because I have a high regard for them, since most of them voted for me, and I like the areas where they live. But it is impossible to represent properly a constituency of the size of North Down, and here I agree with the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. Not only are there the difficulties of getting about a constituency which is geographically large but there is the problem of dealing with the great number of questions brought by constituents. The complexities of modern life mean that more people come along to our advice centres.
The present electorate of North Down is just over 120,000. On the basis of the recommended changes, the 1970 register would have an electorate of 81,073. The other constituencies in Northern Ireland are all over 70,000. Nine are over 80,000 and three of those are even larger—91,255 for Londonderry, 96,578 for North Antrim, and 103,789 for South Antrim. The electorates are far too large in those constituencies. The electoral quota for England is 59,000, if I have the figure correct; for Scotland it is 56,000; and for Wales about 50,000.
I know the argument, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that when the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920 it was thought that Ulster, having its own Parliament, did not need as many Members of Parliament as other parts of the United Kingdom. But that position has changed. There was a shift of power from Stormont to Westminster under the last Labour Government. Powers which legally or under convention previously resided in Stormont now reside here. Therefore it is vital that the people of Northern Ireland should have an effective voice in this House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North would agree that it is unfair for the electors of Northern Ireland to be treated in this way. Northern Ireland should have four or five more seats. We have often heard allegations about Northern Ireland and the need to bring British standards to it. It is the very essence of British democracy that we must make sure that the vote of the


elector in Northern Ireland has the same value as that of the elector in Great Britain. It is essential that there is a change: instead of 12 Members, Northern Ireland should be represented by either 16 or 17 Members.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: In one respect Scottish Members are fortunate in that they have had a contribution from a Scottish Minister, whereas hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies not only have not had a contribution from a Welsh Minister but have not even had the presence of a Government Minister for Wales.
The Under-Secretary of State said that, except for small and minor criticism of detail, there was general acceptance of these proposals. This is not so. Almost every speaker has been critical of one or more than one aspect. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) was the only exception, as he is the exception in many other ways.
There has been objection to the procedure which is being adopted by the Home Secretary. Many hon. Membets have made strong constituency speeches emphasising how unacceptable a proposal is for themselves, for their constituents, and for the area they represent. It was a grave mistake not to have separate debates: they are essential if we are to deal with the individual and different problems of each constituency.
If that is not to be, equally I deplore—I shall probably be out of favour with the usual channels for saying this—the agreement which was reached through the usual channels that there would be one joint debate on the four Orders. It would have been far better and far more useful if there had been a separate debate at least on each of the four Orders so that the special and differing interests and needs of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could have had adequate and full expression. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) made it clear that the problem in his constituency differs from the problems of Wales and that the suggested solution to his problem might not be ideal for the problems of Welsh constituencies.
The Home Secretary said that the Government had the support of the country for these proposals and that they were

put into the Conservative manifesto. I do not believe that the majority of the people cared a tinker's cuss about the Commissions' reports or read about them in the manifesto of any political party at the last election.
Even if the Home Secretary's assertion were correct, I ask him: which country supported them? It is a certainty that the policies, including this one, of the Tory Government do not command the support of the people of Wales. Before the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) becomes too excited, I concede that the Tories did better in Wales in 1970 than they did in 1966. After yesterday's savage attack on the welfare services in Wales they are never likely to repeat the performance.
Rhondda is to lose one of its Members of Parliament. It is a borough with tremendous social problems, with the running down of industry. It is an area which needs extra assistance right across the board. It needs at least the same representation in the House as it has enjoyed for many years.
Naturally I have a personal interest in this, and I should be foolish and stupid if I pretended that I had not. However, I have an interest in this not only as the Member for Rhondda, West, but as a citizen of Rhondda who was born there, who lives there now, and who will continue to live there whether or not I am a Member of the House.
If I were alone in my criticism of the proposal to halve Rhondda's representation, or if I were supported only by my own party, hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends would have the right to challenge my impartiality. As I am supported in my opposition to this proposal by every political party in Rhondda and by every active social organisation in Rhondda, I do not believe that my impartiality can be challenged.
I oppose the proposals because they are illogical and ill-timed. They are illogical because they do not remove the differences in the size of electorates which many people believed was the purpose of these changes. They are ill-timed because they do not take account the present position of local government reform as it affects Wales.
Let us consider the logic of the argument and the variation in constituency


sizes. The largest constituency in Wales has 67,000 electors, the smallest 25,000, a difference between the two electorates of 42,000. We might have assumed that as a result of these Orders that gap would be narrowed, though I am not saying that that should be the case. However, we find that if these proposals are accepted the larger constituency will have 73,000 electors and the smallest will stay at 25,000. The gap is thereby widened from 42,000 to 48,00 electors. Is this logical? I certainly cannot see any logic in it.
If all the proposals for Wales are implemented it will mean that there will still be ten constituencies with electorates of fewer than 45,000, there would be 11 constituencies with electorates more than 60,000, and half of the constituencies of Wales would be either 10,000 below or 10,000 above. In the Rhondda we would have an electorate of 68,000, 30 per cent. above the quota, which would make us the second largest constituency in Wales, whereas the newly created constituency of Cardiff, North would have an electorate of only 36,000. It might be said that its population will grow, but I understood that the Commission were not to take into account possible future population trends. If we use the 1970 figures, the relative positions do not change at all.
On the timing of the proposals, we in Wales have had a glut of White Papers on local government reform, but we clearly understood that the Secretary of State for Wales was anxious and indeed willing to proceed with local government reform in Wales. When the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) was shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs he criticised the Labour Government for being slow to implement local government reform. Indeed, in the Welsh Grand Committee he urged the right hon. Gentleman to go ahead with local government reorganisation and not to keep everyone waiting. So that one must assume that the present Government are equally anxious not to delay local government reform. The hon. Member for Hereford has also said that he supports the 1967 White Paper, with certain exceptions. If the Government believe these things, why are they now proposing major changes in parliamentary representation before they have first sorted out local government problems?
If the proposals in the Orders are carried out, they will bring into the Rhondda the northern part of the old parish of Llantrisant, which would bring in an additional 8,000 electors, making the Rhondda electorate more than 76,000. It is not only desirable but essential that where possible the parliamentary boundaries should be married with local government boundaries. It is possible to do this in Wales fairly quickly. There is no need for this rush toward Parliamentary redistribution. People already get confused between Members of Parliament in adjacent constituencies, and when Members of Parliament represent parts of two different boroughs the confusion becomes total.
I ask the Government to give us local government reform in Wales and, having done so, to give us a parliamentary boundaries redistribution based on a far more logical approach. Unless we have some assurance on that score, I for one intend to vote against these proposals.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I hope that I did not appear to be too excited when the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) referred to recent Conservative successes in Wales. It is idle for him to speculate about what will happen at the next election, but certainly both our constituencies come under review in these proposals. Both are affected by the Order.
The hon. Gentleman appears to be far more excited and anxious about the proposed changes than I am—and with good cause. As for the electorate of 36,000 in Cardiff, North which he said might grow, I can assure him that it will, since considerable housing developments are taking place with further developments envisaged.
At this point, I want to apply some of the principles expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the situation in Wales and the proposals in the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order. The major changes are that the two Rhondda constituencies will be merged into one and that there will be four constituencies in the capital city of Wales where there are now three. I would remind hon. Members that, over the last three years, Cardiff has taken in a considerable part of the constituency of


Barry and that, if these proposals are approved, part of that constituency will be redistributed between the four new ones.
The argument was put forcefully by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and has been echoed by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West that the proposed local government changes will make nonsense of any parliamentary proposals which are now put forward in this Order. However, whatever local government proposals there may be, the community of Cardiff will not be divided, nor is it possible in the reality of South Wales life for Rhondda to be divided by any arbitrary decision.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Surely he realises that the local government proposals for Rhondda would stretch its boundaries to include the northern part of Llantrisant. That would mean a parliamentary constituency of Rhondda which did not represent the whole local government area of Rhondda.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood my point. I was seeking to establish that Rhondda would not be divided. It is true that it might be expanded in any local government change. It is true, too, that the capital of Wales has been taking an expansionist view in the direction of Glamorgan and that it might like to take in certain other areas. However, there is no question of Rhondda and Cardiff being divided. Two local government communities will remain, with no danger of any local government proposal dividing them.
Then I would apply another criterion which was very well argued by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who stressed the importance of a greater weighting being given in central areas of our great cities, including the capital city of Wales. We have great problems in Cardiff connected with university expansion, with urban motorways which are proposed to go right through the centre of the city, and with central development. It is well known that great social stresses are developing in the area. Consequently, it is proposed to reduce the constituency of Cardiff, North from six wards to four. That will allow the hon. Member representing the constituency to apply his time

and skills to the increasing needs and social stresses of the constituency. In Rhondda, on the other hand, it is fair to say that it is a community which is in no way socially divided. It is a community, as only those of us who live in South Wales appreciate, that has two valleys—Rhondda Fach and Rhondda Fawr. Most people refer not to two Rhondda Valleys but to one. Therefore, the proposals of the Boundary Commission meet the needs of both communities, the capital city and the Rhondda, the two areas most closely affected. I welcome the Boundary Commission's proposals and support the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: If the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Michael Roberts) thinks that Cardiff will not be changed, he has forgotten the effect of possible re-warding. Even though the local area of a borough may not change significantly, it is conceivable that the boundaries of the wards within that borough will be changed, and that, in the criteria of the Boundary Commission, is one of the causes for a change. Certainly in my Borough of Greenwich, in London, we are at present going through a process of re-warding. When that process is concluded, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission relating to that borough will be completely upset.
One of the major criticisms of the haste with which the Government are presenting these proposals tonight is that they overlook altogether the large number of places where re-warding has taken place recently, is taking place now, and will take place in the next four years. This surely is one reason, above all the others put forward by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, why the Government should look again at these Orders.
Cardiff, North, with 36,000 electors, fares extremely well compared with Newport with 72,000. One argument often used, which was used by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, is that in Wales and Scotland one vote certainly counts for more than in England because the areas are so large. One cannot say that about Cardiff, North, because it is not like Merioneth or Anglesey.
This disparity between constituencies, not only in Wales, not only in Scotland, not only in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said, but throughout England, runs right through the Reports of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Wilkinson: It might interest the hon. Gentleman and the House to know that since 1965 the City of Cardiff, the capital of Wales, has had its electorate within the county borough decline steadily. In 1965, it was approximately 183,200; in 1968, 181,800; and in 1969, 180,840. However, the electorate of the City of Bradford, the capital of the wool textile district of the West Riding, in 1970 was no fewer than 211,000—about 19,000 more than this year's electorate for Cardiff, which is to gain a seat—and yet we are to lose one.

Mr. Hamling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing that further point which buttresses the case put forward by my right hon. Friend and completely destroys the Government's case. What the hon. Gentleman has just said, and what he said in his admirable speech earlier, is that there is no logic, no rhyme or reason in the Orders before the House. The hon. Gentleman will run into trouble with his Whips before he is much older. When we were in Government we used to think that we had trouble with our people below the Gangway. There is one hon. Gentleman above the Gangway who will be a damned nuisance to his Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Damned is an un-parliamentary word.

Mr. Hamling: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should say that he will be an intolerable nuisance, a pernicious nuisance. I suggest that he keeps it up.
Throughout the debate no hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who has disappeared—he was not here for long, and he did not stay for long—has supported the Government's proposals. Every speaker, including the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, gave ample proof that my right hon. Friend is right and that the Government are wrong—

and now I shall refer to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that the Government knew that there were inconsistencies. He knows that West Lothian is wrong. He knows that all these things are wrong, but the Government still intend to get these Orders.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not say that they were wrong. I said that they were the best at the time of the publication of the report, and they are still the best in the circumstances of today.

Mr. Hamling: And what a bad best. When one looks at the figures for West Lothian and other constituencies in Scotland one sees the wide disparities in industrial areas, let alone in the rural areas. There is no logic, no fairness and no justice in the Order before the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) have made no representations to me on this matter, have not spoken during the debate, and have not appeared in the Chamber? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks his facts before he gets to his feet.

Mr. Hamling: The fact that my hon. Friends are not here does not mean that there is justice in the proposals. I am saying that there is no justice in them. I am here, and I am making a speech. I have the figures and the hon. Gentleman has the figures, too.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should speak to his hon. Friends.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Gentleman knows that these figures are unjust. He knows that the Government have not presented a case for them.
We are told that we should accept these proposals because this is the best that we can do. If that is so, the Government should take these proposals away and bury them. We are told that the Commissioners have been impartial. Should the House accept the Orders simply because the Commissioners are impartial? We are told that the Commissioners worked hard. They worked so hard that the figures are completely irrelevant to 1970, let alone to 1974, when the next General Election may take place. Or are the Government thinking of a snap


election? Possibly that is why they want these Orders now, in case they have a snap election next year.
If the figures are irrelevent now, if they are wrong now, how much more wrong will they be in 1974? The only reasons advanced by the Home Secretary and the hon. Members for Cannock and Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. John H. Osborn) why the House should accept the Orders is that the Commissioners have worked hard, that they have been conscientious, and that they are impartial, but the question which I hope the Minister of State for the Home Department will answer is, are these proposals just? Are they just to every constituency throughout the country? Are they just to electors in Cardiff, North or in the Rhondda? Are they just to electors in Ealing, or Kensington and Chelsea? Are they just in Bradford?
With two exceptions every speech that we heard was based on principles and on arguments. They were based on the argument that the reports of the Commissioners were wrong in justice, were wrong in equity and were wrong in every principle. The Government have no case for putting these Orders before the House.
I propose, now, to direct my attention to one or two other considerations which ought to be borne in mind. In London we have the example of 207,000 electors having four Members of Parliament, and 209,000 electors having only three. Are the Home Department justified in that? Are they saying that that is right? The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) made one of the fairest speeches that we have heard from any Conservative on this question in the last two years. He completely supported the case put forward by my Front Bench calling for the Government to look again at all these proposals.
Are we to be faced, in 1974 or 1975, with a General Election based on these boundaries, with all their manifest unfairnesses? Are we to face a situation in which the electors of England are manifestly under-represented in comparison with those of Wales or Scotland. It is implicit in the rules that English electors shall be treated less fairly and less justly than the electors of Wales or Scotland. The electors of Northern Ireland are treated even more unfairly. The rules were laid down in the 1949 Act, and are now 21

years old. The Act should be scrapped. We should have new rules which are as fair to English electors as to Welsh or Scottish electors. That is one important principle that should be applied in this matter.
There are other considerations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the special conditions in Tower Hamlets, East London. We can think of many other urban communities of a similar nature. I think of Kirkdale, in Liverpool, represented so well by my able hon. Friend. The Commissioners have said that that district was over-represented before. We shall lose one seat in Liverpool. The electors there will lose one Parliamentary representative. But surely everything that my right hon. Friend said about Tower Hamlets can be said about the inner areas of Liverpool or Manchester.
Member after Member has put forward his constituency as a special case that should be given more consideration. I deduce from all that has been said that there are general principles at work. All these cases indicate to me—and ought to indicate to the Home Office if it would listen—that these Orders should be taken away, and that the Government should look again at the whole basis of the 1949 Act and the rules under which the Commission has worked. They should ask, "What are we trying to do? What is the purpose of the exercise?" That is what all this is about. One wonders why the Government were in such a hurry to introduce these Orders. Is it merely out of pique because, a year ago, they took a hammering and they want to get their own back early, or is it because they are thinking of a snap election next year and want all the advantages which they think might arise from the Commission's report?
I hope that they do not think that. In the debate last year, I criticised my right hon. Friend because I thought that he was being overfair to the Conservative Party in some of the things he said, and because I thought that there were many advantages for Labour constituencies and Labour candidates in the reports. I did not think of party considerations here. We would have had a great advantage if we had fought the last election on the new boundaries, particularly in places like


Billericay and in some other places where some of my hon. Friends lost their seats although polling 40,000 votes. I am thinking of Alan Lee Williams in this regard—one of the better Members of the House—who lost his seat although he polled over 40,000 votes. I have no doubt that if that constituency had been reorganised, it would have been a good safe Labour seat.
It is not party advantage that is in my mind. What I am thinking of is the principle of this exercise. I hope that the Home Secretary will take it away and look at it again, and come up with something better. We have the reforms of local government. Is it beyond the wit of this Government to produce something quickly in their local government reform? I know that many of the Tory Party do not like Maud but they will still have to come to terms with local government reform—and better soon than late.
One advantage of the speed of this debate is that it has given the House a chance to hear the points of view of various hon. Members. Is it not astonishing that so many Conservative Members are now criticising the report that they wanted to drive through the House a year ago? I wonder why this change on the road to Damascus.
Another advantage of the debate is that it gives the Home Office an early opportunity of changing its mind and of asking the questions which have been asked from these benches, the questions of general principle that they should have asked themselves, instead of this sloppy, slipshod, quick recourse to introducing Orders, which the Home Secretary introduced in the most perfunctory speech I have ever heard from a Front Bench. He gave no reason at all for the Orders and we had an apologetic speech from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I have never heard a proposal put forward in the House with so little reason as these have been today.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It would seem, as a result of these proceedings, that I shall have the doubtful distinction of being the last Member of Parliament for Bradford, East. This is a distinction which I would rather have done without, because my constituency

has an honourable history and there is no substantial reason why it should disappear.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) described Bradford as "my city". I hope he will allow me to describe it as "our city". Bradford East has been faithful to the Labour cause and there are rumours that the Liberals and Conservatives are anxious to preserve me as the hon. Member for this constituency—not for my intrinsic merit, but to preserve the 9,000 Labour majority from spreading over into other less comfortable boroughs. However, I urge that the considerations which we must have in mind in dealing with this matter are not those of narrow party advantage.
We face an incredible situation. There was a provisional recommendation of the Boundary Commission that Bradford should retain its four seats, after the Assistant Commissioner had come down narrowly, if a little ambiguously, in favour of four seats. But Bradford is to have three seats, for no reason other than that Devon and Cornwall are to have one more seat.
It is no use saying that the Boundary Commission has done its best and that this is a rational, overall result. Why should Bradford, which has nothing in common with Devon and Cornwall, with the Celtic fringe, sacrifice one of its parliamentary seats because of some adherence to a total number of seats for England? Bradford has its own manifold problems, but there is, apparently, a rule which says that in England we must not have more than a certain number of Members of Parliament.
When the Commissioners decided to get rid of a seat, they could have gone for Gateshead, West, with 34,000 voters, or Newcastle, Central, with 31,000. But no. By what appears to have been a process of sticking a pin in the middle of a collation of constituency statistics, they came down on Bradford, East, which has nearly 41,000 voters. It is scarcely rational. It cannot be logical.
One must bear in mind, as I said earlier in an intervention, the fact that Bradford is to have only three seats while Newcastle, with a population of 13,000 less, is to retain four seats. Why must all these decisions be lumped under the umbrella of this one Order so that we


cannot deal with the justice of the case area by area?
The West Riding has severe difficulties already. It will have one hon. Member less in this House. It has been calculated that Bradford contains within its borders 39 different nationalities. There are the problems arising from the cosmopolitan nature of this population. Promlems arise from the closures and rationalisation which occur in the textile industry. There are problems due to dereliction. This Order comes one day after a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to prevent the enlargement of the Leeds-Bradford Airport, which will probably mean the closure of that airport, a dreadful decision for the West Riding.
Now, the Conservatives, being in office, have decided that they will not do justice to Bradford. Instead, under the umbrella of the Order, they are taking steps against which there is no appeal, either in whole or in part. In most courts, a decision can be appealed against in a higher court. It was always believed that whatever the Boundary Commissioners decided, their recommendations would be appealable in this House. That possibility of appeal has been taken away from us today and we are presented with a situation in which we must either accept or reject everything.
One has occasionally to make a protest. My duty is to the City of Bradford. In my submission, it is higher than the duty to my party on this occasion, and I will vote against the Order as a protest because the reduction of the City of Bradford to three seats will be taken by many as a demotion. It will be regarded as a symptom of accelerating decline at a time when every effort is being made to revive that city. I am a Member of Parliament for that city and I am not prepared to support an Order which would lend colour to the view that Bradford—and, indeed, the West Riding generally—is of less importance than hitherto—far from it. I propose to vote against the Order.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I first congratulate the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram) on his maiden speech. As was said earlier, he spoke clearly and concisely and made the point

that in his area, the Wirral, there will soon be a need for redistribution. It is a point to which I should like to return later in terms of the immediate future, of the legislation under which we operate and of the remarks of the Home Secretary.
The debates on redistribution over the last year have fitted into the pattern of all debates on redistribution since this political need was put within the present rules after the Speaker's Conference of 1944. The redistribution of 1948 was characterised by the then Leader of the Opposition as being carried out in bad faith and as being gerrymandering. The present Lord Chancellor said that the then Bill should not be called the "Representation of the People Bill" but the "Representation of the Labour Party Bill". The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) argued cogently but wrongly that that Bill was to the advantage of the Labour Party. In the event, every estimate when the election came showed that the changes that had taken place made the Labour Party 40 to 60 seats worse off in this House.
At the same time, the charge of impropriety did not depend wholly on the alleged breach of faith. The Opposition maintained that the then Labour Government had flouted a constitutional practice, established for 60 or 80 years, whereby the franchise and the distribution of seats were changed only by agreement or on a direct popular mandate. But as Mr. Williams, of Nuffield College, in the Political Quarterly of July-September 1968, showed, during those years,
Reform was always a party matter, involving both a philosophical difference between the egalitarian democrats and the defenders of prescription and a hard-headed awareness on both sides that the Conservative Party benefited from traditional privileges and would protect them with every weapon at its command".
One of its weapons was, of course, the House of Lords.
Redistribution last year was characterised by exactly the same hyperbole. Irrespective of the merits of the case for postponement of the main distribution, there was little evidence that the electoral effect was anything like the extreme figures then bandied about. Indeed, in The Times this week, in spite of the large figures quoted last year, we are now down to five seats, making a difference of ten


seats. All the evidence was subjective, and anyone who would dare to stand up now and make an estimate about the effects of the redistribution, when there was not a psephologist, or whatever those people call themselves, who was right at the last election, would be a very brave man indeed.
In my estimate, which is as good as anyone else's, the redistribution had little effect either way on any of the parties. In any event—and it is as well to bear it in mind in talking about redistribution—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out a year ago, in 1964 a total of 40 seats were decided by majorities of less than 1,000, one seat in 1966 was decided by a majority of three and in that same election 75 seats were decided on majorities of less than 2,000. What matters to the determination on polling day are those who stay at home, the weather and factors of that kind.
There is the size of the poll, which was the determining factor in June—far more important than the marginal effect of distribution—and the number of seats, such as at Ipswich, Brighouse and Spenborough, and Leicester, South-West, with majorities varying from 106 down to 13. These are the factors, together with the postal vote—the most insecure in terms of the secrecy of the ballot.
Those are the facts of the matter, but the "gerrymandering" cry has served its purpose. We on this side of the House were right last year. There was to be a major local government reform affecting 400 constituencies. We were absolutely right to suggest what we did and in the method by which we put it to the House, by a Bill. There were debates on all the constituencies and, indeed, by the ingenuity of the then Opposition, on constituencies which were not affected, because we did it by Bill, as the rules on Bills are different from the rules on Orders. We ignored the political pay-off. We should have looked at the history of the last 50 or 60 years. The word "gerrymandering" comes easily to the mind of the party opposite, even when they have no facts with which to justify it.
There are a number of points that I should like to put to the Government.

The matter is still not crystal-clear. The 1949 Act, as amended in 1958, will still go on, whatever happens tonight. What are the rights of this House tonight and in the future when Orders of this type are put before us? The Home Secretary's view is that we have an impartial Report and that we should do nothing. That, however, is a matter of opinion. What I want to know clearly from the Government is, what is the right of the House of Commons?
In the debate last year, there was a to-ing and fro-ing between the present Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary about what was intended by the coalition Government when the procedure was set up. The late Lord Morrison told the House in the days of the coalition Government that:
… these recommendations will not, of course, be binding upon Ministers. It will be competent for Ministers to accept, or reject or amend … Parliament will settle the principle. Parliament will deal with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners as modified or not and submitted by the Government of the day, and at no stage would there by any situation which is not entirely under Parliamentary control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1613.]
Whatever are the views of right hon. and learned Gentlemen, that was certainly the intention. He was talking about Section 4(5) of the Act of 1944. The same provision is in the Act of 1949, word for word. Parliament is supreme over the periodical reports.
In a debate on 21st March last year, when I was replying from the Front Bench opposite and using a form of words which I had very carefully checked, I said:
The Government propose to consider the recommendations and reach their conclusions on them in the light of circumstances when the Reports are received. The matter would then be in the hands of Parliament, and I remind the House that, under Section 3(5) of the 1949 Act, if a draft Order is rejected by either House, or withdrawn by leave of either House, the Secretary of State may amend the draft and lay an amended draft.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 988.]
There is, therefore, a way of looking again at proposals from the Boundary Commission.
It is possible, in the present case, given the passage of time, for proposals to be put again to the Boundary Commission.


Given the fact that these proposals are not to be applied until the next General Election, there is plenty of time for the Boundary Commission again to look at some of the problems—the problem of Bradford, of the Rhondda and of other parts of the country, those areas where the population has grown since 1965 because of the weaknesses of the Rules under the 1949 and 1958 Acts on which Boundary Commissioners have to work. There is no hurry. There is time to look at some of the sillinesses which would be involved if we passed the Orders in their present form.
If the Government's proposals go through, what then? The Secretary of State referred to Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act and the interim reports. How are those interim reports to apply? Would such a report benefit Bradford, or is it merely a pipe-dream for Bradford? The same goes for Sheffield. Is it simply a question of marginal effects? What will those interim reports do? Will they all be collected together in the next year or two and then be brought to the House in another Order, or will they come in dribs and drabs?
Will they take into account what has happened in so many cases, for example, in Birmingham, where everyone speaks about a small constituency but, as I remember, having made inquiries before any question of redistribution arose, where there is to be more rehousing in that part of Birmingham which will make the population, not enormous, but certainly far greater than any figures being bandied about at the moment?
The House ought to know what those interim reports mean. This is of vital importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), for example, in whose borough there is all-party feeling, as there is in Bradford, against the iniquities of the situation.
In Bradford, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) told us, as did his colleague from the same city, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), there is such strong feeling that a very large document on the subject has been sent to the Prime Minister. Whoever prepared it did his homework carefully, because it points out what the Prime Minister said he would do last year and what he has done this year.

The right hon. Gentleman set himself up at the time of the election as being above the mere politician, but the Achilles heel has quickly shown itself. The Prime Minister is responsible tonight for a process which, as Leader of the Opposition, he strongly stigmatised last year. He has done exactly the same, or even worse, because he did not know what could have happened under the Measure which we put forward.
What about the local government changes? We are not clear, but it seems that there will not be a swift movement towards local government reform in the way envisaged in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. One hears talk about a two-tier system rather than the system put forward in the report last year.
In the debates in 1948—I have read them carefully, and they make interesting reading—the present Lord Chancellor was concerned to postpone the redistribution at that time until there had been local government reform. Chameleon-like, he had changed his mind 20 years later. But the argument of the Labour Government on this issue a year ago remains the same. There will be local government reform of some kind, I presume. The reforms which we should have introduced would have affected about 400 constituencies. Are we to wait 14 years before there is a major redistribution, with major local government reform taking place in the meantime, even if it is not based on Redcliffe-Maud, even if it is based on the minority proposals of Mr. Senior or something of that kind?
Will the Boundary Commission be reactivated? We went through this night after night and the question was debated also in the other place. Reactivation was the important word. Is there to be reactivation of the Boundary Commission to deal with the major reforms which take place—I am not referring to the interim reports—so that we do not have to wait 14 years in face of the major local government reforms which are to come? We may not have heard much from the Government about local government reform since the election, but it is important for the House to know what their intention is.
What about consultations with the Opposition in such circumstances? The bit that left the nastiest taste in my


mouth from all the arguments about redistribution in the last Parliament was the allegation made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East by a number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that no approaches had been made to the then Opposition about it. They waxed furious on the subject and impugned his integrity. I happened to look the matter up—my right hon. Friend knew but was prepared to sit back and say nothing because of the conventions of the House—and I read the documents which showed that the Opposition had been consulted. The present Leader of the House was involved. There was not one word from anybody withdrawing the imputations.
However, it did not matter. The party opposite had to belabour the gerrymandering and win an election. It did not matter what was done here against the good name of right hon. and hon. Members. That does not augur very well for any discussions that might take place in this or the next Parliament, because it was done in an ungentlemanly fashion, and I for one would be very suspicious. If there is to be local government reform, are the Opposition to be consulted in the same way as we approached the then Opposition, although they conveniently forgot about it in the heat of the debate?
There are a number of general points. The method we use for redistribution is 30 years old. Redistribution used to be done by the Government of the day, and the history books about the nineteenth century refer to the great effect on the development of democracy of redistributions carried out by Act of Parliament. Eventually, nearly 30 years ago, the present system of the Boundary Commissions was introduced. There is very strong feeling on both sides of the House tonight that Parliament should be able to have a view on the matter and that it is not good enough to say that an impartial report is brought to the House. We have had plenty of examples of nonsenses perpetrated by the Commission, however excellent is its report in general. It is like so many other things that have happened, because we keep setting up Commissions that tie the hands of Ministers, particularly in National Insurance. I discovered this when I was a junior Minister. Members write to a

Minister and one can only write back saying, "I can do nothing because the matter has been put before an impartial Commission". We should have the right to play a part in these things.
Are the statutory Rules right? They were put into the Act of 1949 and amended in the Act of 1958. We fetter the Boundary Commissions. They have to work within legislation made by the House, and one of the grave weaknesses is that we tell them not to take into account the trends in population. A new town may be being built in an area, but we say, "Do not take it into account. It will be flowering in a population sense by the time the report is published, but do not take it into account. Take into account the date—in this instance 1965." So, whether they had been agreed by the House last year or this year, the proposals are five years out of date. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) pointed out the great mobility of population and the change in the demographic map which our predecessors in 1949 did not take into account.
There is one other factor which, I suppose, can be shrugged off in narrow party terms. But there is a very strong feeling within the Labour Party that in the methods by which we redistribute seats there is a very strong bias against the Labour Party. It is something that can be shrugged off, but it is strongly felt.
There is another view, that the law is badly drafted. Mr. Butler wrote:
It is desirable that constituencies should be equal in size and determined by a routine and neutral procedure that is outside party control. I would like the rules of the game to be above suspicion, but as one who has read every word uttered in Parliament in this century I know that this has seldom happened.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy about the matter. The Boundary Commissioners must take into account the warding done within boroughs and urban district councils. The Minister of State has kindly reminded me of how this works. I was responsible for this until a few months ago. I am grateful to him for the information that under the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1963, there are rules for re-warding. I wonder whether the suggestions for warding from various local


authorities, whatever their political composition, are neutral and politically objective and not subjective. Once they are in force in the local area, however, those are the basis on which the Boundary Commissioners must work. All of us in the House know that the way a borough or urban district council is re-warded has a major effect on constituency boundaries.
When I read reports such as those by Mr. Butler and think of what we all know in our heart of hearts, I wonder whether the time has come for the Home Secretary and the Government to look afresh at the whole system. It is a long time since 1944. It is a nonsense that because of the Act the Boundary Commissioners must work on a population which is five years out of date. It is possible to look afresh at the population, and to do so very quickly, in the period before the Report is published.
There is general dissatisfaction with the procedure involved in the Boundary Commission reports. Hon. Members on both sides are concerned with the effect in their own areas. If the Government really want to be helpful, there is plenty of time to look at the reports again—there is no urgency in these matters—and I can only hope that they will do so. Many of my hon. Friends look at the matter far more firmly, and I understand that they will act in their own way when it is time to vote.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I know that the House listened with great interest to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Cockeram), who reflected the point of view expressed and felt by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend's constituency is considerably affected by the Commission's recommendations and it would have been well understood if he had taken a stronger line than he did, but he rightly said in his concluding remarks, having made his case very strongly indeed, that it would be wrong for any Government to re-write the impartial proposals of the Commission. The House certainly supports him in that. We shall look forward to hearing my hon. Friend again. The House greatly appreciated his contribution.
I shall try to deal with the majority at points which have been raised in this wide-ranging debate. It is apparent that this is a subject which, as in previous debates, cuts across the main party lines. One of my first recollections about entering the House is of the debates which took place on the recommendations of the Commission in 1954. I well remember the long debates which we had on individual constituencies at that time. The House always has had considerable sympathy with any hon. Member whose constituency is to be abolished or even substantially altered.
The first theme which has run through the debate—it was the main point in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—is that the Orders should have been taken separately. For reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite the best person to advocate that course, because he described the 1954 procedure of taking each Order separately as a farce.

Mr. Callaghan: It is 16 years ago, but I still recall that I thought that it was a farce.

Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman was young then.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that I remain young for many years to come. My attitude arose because I thought that Major Gwilym Lloyd George was not responding to the arguments which were put forward, not because he was laying the Order separately—I approved of that.

Mr. Sharples: I seem to recall that the right hon. Gentleman during his time as Home Secretary was accused not infrequently of not responding to the arguments which were advanced. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt very effectively with this point, and I need not traverse the ground again.
The second major theme which has run through the debate has been points affecting individual areas. I shall say something in detail about these later. In relation to areas of the great cities of Bradford and Sheffield and of individual constituencies such as the two Kensingtons, the Rhonddas, Wycombe, Durham and other constituencies, we have heard the kind of debate which took place when


the 1954 Orders were considered. I do not think that any hon. Member who wished to make a point about his own constituency has been precluded from doing so by time.
The third theme running through the debate has been broad proposals for altering the considerations which the Commission should take into account. I listened carefully to what was said. The Government will be ready to consider suggestions that have been made for improving the procedure by which boundary changes can be made. The Government would always be ready to do so. If any changes were to be made, they should be in the spirit of the 1949 and 1958 Acts—that is, on the basis of all-party agreement, without which impartial machinery of this kind cannot work.
In answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), I do not know of any proposal during the past six years for changes in the procedure under the 1948 Act which were put forward at that time for consideration by the Conservative Party. We would be willing to listen to proposals which are put forward in the future.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South also asked about the reactivation of the Commission. I understand that discussions took place before the General Election. Technically, the position is that at the moment all the Commissions have no members. Their last term of office expired on 31st December, 1969. It is our intention to reappoint the Commissions in the fairly near future and an announcement will be made very soon.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the abortive House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill introduced by the last Government. He gave that as an example of giving hon. Members on all sides of the House the opportunity of debating separately the various proposals. I would remind the House that that Bill at a fairly early stage in its passage through the House was subject to the Guillotine.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about the powers of the House in relation to these Orders. The draft Orders can be approved or rejected or withdrawn by the Government with a view to amendment. They cannot be amended by the House and therefore for

that reason Amendments put down to alter the Orders were ruled out of order.
I turn to some of the individual points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I hope that we can be clear about the situation regarding interim reports which will now come from the Boundary Commission. Since it will be many years before there is a major Commission, how will this work? Will it be up to the Boundary Commission to say that there is a need for a change?

Mr. Sharples: A number of hon. Members have asked about interim reports and I shall be saying a little about that later. It is important that the matter be covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North referred to larger electorates in Northern Ireland. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said about that. My hon. Friend will appreciate that any alteration in the number of Members from Northern Ireland would involve amendment of the 1920 Act, with the considerable difficulties that would flow from that procedure.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) said he opposed the Orders on the grounds that they were already out of date and did not take into account changes in the electorate which had occurred since the Boundary Commission had reported. Given the time factor and the fact that it takes the Boundary Commission some four years to carry out the detailed examination which it has to make, we shall always be in a position where recommendations of the Commission will be somewhat out of date. He also made some interesting observations about the American system and how it might be used here. I listened carefully to what he said, but I did not notice very much support on either side of the House for the proposals that he put forward.
Another point he made I should like to correct as a matter of fact. He said that my right hon. Friend had stated that the local government reform would not take place until 1978 or 1979. If he looks up what my right hon. Friend said, it was that the next review of the Boundary Commission, taking into account any local government changes


which might be made in the meantime, could hardly be completed before 1978 or 1979. The point was that, unless one makes the changes in the course of this present Parliament, the next General Election will be fought on the 1954 boundaries. I am sure that such a proposal would not command support in any part of the House.

Mr. Leonard: My point was that, given a proper sense of urgency concerning these matters on the Conservative benches, there is no reason why the local government reform should not be enacted in this Parliament and in time for a parliamentary redistribution to take place before the next General Election, assuming that this Parliament runs its full course.

Mr. Sharples: We have to examine carefully the proposals for the reform of local government. This is a major step, and it would be wrong for a new Government to rush lightly into major proposals of this kind.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) made some play about whether one should accept the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner who carried out the inquiries on the ground or those of the Commission. The hon. Gentleman also complained about the reduction from four to three of the number of constituencies in Ealing. It is perhaps a little unfortunate from his point of view that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commission recommended the reduction in that case.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made a very interesting speech—

Mr. Molloy: I conceded that point. I hope that I shall not have to resort to a surgical operation to bring my argument to the forefront of the hon. Gentleman's mind. My point was that here were the Assistant Commissioner and the main Commission recommending three constituencies, while the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and all the local organisations in Ealing said that, in their view, there should be four. I was suggesting that their viewpoints should be recognised as well.

Mr. Sharples: Certainly, but that is a demonstration of the impartiality of the Commission.

Mr. Molloy: What about the ordinary people?

Mr. Sharples: My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) raised important issues concerning their constituencies. The hon. Gentleman questioned the legality of the recommendation of the Boundary Commission and asked whether the Commission was entitled to take account of population changes occurring since its original Report and whether those changes should apply to one constituency only.
Obviously, the Boundary Commission considered this matter. In paragraph 47 of its final recommendations, one sees:
The requirement in the 1958 Act to hold local inquiries and publish revised recommendations, coupled with the review of local government boundaries proceeding at the same time as our general review of constituencies, has meant that our review has taken four years to complete. One disadvantage of this was that the 1965 electorates on which we were required to base our review became increasingly out of date as the review has proceeded, and so we decided to re-appraise, in the light of the 1968 electorates, all the border-line entitlements and claims for additional seats.
In fact, the Commission carried out an examination of a large number of seats in a position similar to that of Kensington.
Concerning the legality of the Commission's recommendations the rules laid down are not binding upon the Commission. They are intended to guide the Commission in framing its recommendations, but it is for the Commission to interpret the rules, to decide what is practicable, and to recommend accordingly. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations put forward by the Government of the day in order to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The requirements of certain of the rules are discretionary and the Boundary Commission can take them into account—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak up. I must hear him and so must the reporters.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The requirements of certain of the rules are discretionary, but the requirements of Rules 5 and 7 of the 1949 Act are not, so far as I read the Act, discretionary at all. Although


I appreciate that the Boundary Commission, in paragraph 47, has stated what it intends to do, it has given no reference to the Act as its source or justification for doing so. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that aspect.

Mr. Sharples: I understand that it is for the Boundary Commission to interpret the rules. That is my advice.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend will find that Rule 5 of the 1949 Act is expressly qualified by the 1958 Act.
As I am on my feet making that observation, may I say that my right hon. Friend was about to make a reference to my speech when he was interrupted. Will he satisfy my curiosity as to what he was about to say?

Mr. Sharples: I will return to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech when I have finished with Kensington.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) suggested that the constituency's boundaries should be readjusted in the light of a re-warding scheme to be brought in by the local authority. I understand that as yet we have had no proposals from the council about its re-warding scheme; but, subject to the usual procedure, they would be dealt with as quickly as possible. Once a re-warding order has been made it is for the Boundary Commission, not the Home Office, to decide whether the constituency boundary can be adjusted by means of an interim review.
I return to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. I thought that my right hon. Friend was not going to be here. In fact he sent me a note saying that he would not be here. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted from paragraph 39 of the Commission's report and criticised the requirement of the Commission not to take into account future changes in population. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted the part of paragraph 39 which says:
The Rules require the use of current electorates and do not ask us to make recommendations on the basis of electorates as they will be in, say, five or ten years.

My right hon. and learned Friend stopped his quotation there, but I should like to quote the remainder of the paragraph:
We cannot, however, escape the fact that the intention of the present law is that a general review shall form the basis of constituency boundaries for at least the next ten years and it would therefore be desirable to make recommendations that would, so far as possible, cushion the effect of gains or losses of electorate so far as they could be foreseen with some degree of certainty.
It was in the light of that that the Commission went on to take the action described in paragraph 47 of its report, to which I have referred.
We heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyon) about the situation in Bradford. Both hon. Members put forward powerful arguments in support of the points of view which have been expressed to my right hon. Friend and myself from many quarters in that city. The main argument against the loss of one of the constituencies in Bradford—and this was the main argument of the two hon. Members to whom I have referred—is that the reduction in the city's parliamentary representation will diminish its prestige at a crucial stage of its redevelopment. The second argument is that large numbers of the immigrant population have not registered. Both these points were considered by the Assistant Commissioner who held the inquiry. It is fair to say that the first point about the prestige of the City carried considerable weight with him, but I do not think that the second point carried the same weight. The Assistant Commissioner estimated that only about 2,000 of the immigrant population had not registered and this would not have made any difference to the recommendations.

Mr. Wilkinson: The point made by Bradford Members is that, whether registered or no, immigrants present a greater work load and greater responsibility for hon. Members, and from the point of view of community relations the interests of the immigrant community and of the indigenous community in areas where immigrants have settled must be fully represented in the House. My hon. Friend will be aware that from the point of view of


personal considerations immigrant problems absorb a great proportion of a Member's time in a city or seat where there are large concentrations of immigrants.

Mr. Sharples: Those are considerations to be borne in mind, but the Commission and the Assistant Commissioner, after taking all the considerations into account, came down in favour of the recommendation to reduce the number of constituencies in Bradford. I appreciate the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and of the Member for Bradford, East on this issue, but it is the view of this impartial Commission that this change should be made, and this is a matter on which I can give no comfort to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Perhaps I may raise a simple statistical point. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to answer it immediately, but perhaps he would do so before he sits down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must speak up. The reporters must hear what he says.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke about the reduction in the representation of Bradford and the increase in the representation of Cumberland. Can the Minister tell the House the comparative electorates of Cumberland, which is to retain four Members, and Bradford, which is to be reduced from four to three?

Mr. Sharples: I cannot recall the figures off hand but the hon. Member will be able to look them up just as easily as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) drew attention to the very narrow decision arrived at in the case of Sheffield. He has made strong representations to my right hon. Friend and myself, as have other Sheffield Members, that there should be no change in the representation of that city. I would only point out that the new constituencies for the 1970 electorate come out approximately as follows—73,500 for Hallam; 65,800 for Heeley; 56,100 for Hillsborough and 68,800 for the Park division. All those constituencies fall within the broad target referred to by my right hon. Friend—between 45,000 and 85,000—

within which the Boundary Commission sought to work.
A number of hon. Members, including the Members representing Bradford and Sheffield constituencies, asked about the question of interim reviews. Various suggestions have been made to the effect that the Home Office should in some way initiate interim reviews at early stages to meet certain points. The decision whether to initiate an interim review does not lie with my right hon. Friend; it lies wholly with the independent, impartial Boundary Commission. The Commission is bound by Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act. The scope of the interim review is limited to cases where a report is required to give effect to the rules for redistribution. It means that an interim review can take place only in an area where, because of local government changes, constituency boundaries and major local government boundaries might overlap. The idea is to prevent their overlapping.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: In the case of Sheffield the recent redistribution affecting the city boundary was based on certain population forecasts. They have been affected in terms of the formation of intermediate areas. Is that a criterion which, by writing to the Boundary Commission, could enable it to consider the justification for an interim review fairly quickly?

Mr. Sharples: It is not for me to say the basis on which the Boundary Commission can undertake an interim review. The responsibility for undertaking an interim review is entirely that of the Commission. I should be misleading the House if I were to pretend that my right hon. Friend has any power to influence the Boundary Commission in a decision of that kind.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman make the point crystal clear? Does he mean that the Commission can move for an interim report only where local government changes have been properly carried out under the 1933 Act and the 1963 Local Government Act in London, and only under those circumstances?

Mr. Sharples: The Boundary Commission can undertake an interim review, I understand, in conditions which it thinks merit it. It would not normally do so


unless the conditions to which the hon. Member refers existed.
All that I can say is that I sympathise with my hon. Friends—

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Kaufman rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, continually standing does not help.

Mr. Sharples: I should be misleading hon. Members if I gave any promise about an interim review, which I am not competent to do.
These Orders arise out of the report of the impartial Boundary Commission. The Commission and the Orders have been criticised. It would be extraordinary if they had not. That has happened, so far as I know, every time that the Commission's recommendations have been put forward—for reasons that the House well understands. But the machinery is wholly impartial and it is essential that we should recognise the impartiality of this machinery.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must be gratified by the large attendance that his speech has compelled among his hon. Friends, but it occurred to me that perhaps they were here because they had been whipped. A year ago, the Prime Minister told us that this was not a subject on which he thought it desirable that there should be whipping on the Government side. Would he assure us that there is no Whip on that side tonight?

Mr. Sharples: I would give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same kind of assurances as he gave us when he occupied this position and advised the House to reject the recommendations of the impartial Boundary Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is a Whip and

that this is another example of doing one thing in Opposition and another in Government?

Mr. Sharples: It is for the right hon. Gentleman to draw his own conclusions, but it is our determination to keep to the spirit of the 1949 Act, introduced as a result of all-party agreement, and to advise the House to accept the recommendations of the Commission and the Orders which implement them in full.

Mr. Molloy: Mr. Molloy rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising on a point of order? I am only asking because he has spoken in this debate, I imagine.

Mr. Molloy: I want to reassure your imagination, Sir. I certainly did speak in the debate. I wanted to seek your guidance. The Minister of State was courteous enough to refer to one part of my speech and I very courteously requested him to inform me of the Government's attitude à propos any other Commissions which might be established to make recommendations to the House. I wanted to know whether they would be automatically rubber stamped by this Government or whether we should be able to debate them. This is a reasonable question for a Member of Parliament to ask and the British people should know what will happen in such circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: It may be reasonable—it was put very gracefully—but it is not a point of order.

Question put,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 62.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hon. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Balniel, Lord
Boscawen, R. T.
Carlisle, Mark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Channon, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.




Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmond, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, F. V.
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michaed (Cardiff, North)


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. B.
Sharples, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Antony
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, John


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fidler, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Steel, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Thomas, John Stradiing (Monmouth)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cray, Hamish
More, Jasper
Tilney, John


Green, Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trew, Peter


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gummer, Selwyn
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hayhoe, Barney
Peel, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Holt, Miss Mary
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornby, Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Hector Monro.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)






NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
McGuire, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Mackenzie, Gregor


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mackintosh, John P.


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flnt, East)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Meacher, Michael







Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sillars, James
Torney, Tom


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Probert, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spriggs, Leslie



Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. William Molloy and


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Dick Leonard.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969,

in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Maudling.]

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 55.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[10.42 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fox, Marcus
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mitchell, L.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Batstord, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Green, Alan
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Blaker, Peter
Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar


Boscawen, R. T.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Burden, F. A.
Hicks, Robert
Peel, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Channon, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Pounder, Rafton


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricla
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Corfield, F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Crouch, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Daikeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dixon, Piers
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard



Knox, David



Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Steel, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maddan, Martin
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John




Sutcliffe, John
Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Tapsell, Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Trew, Peter
Whitelaw Rt. Hn. William


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Tebbit, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Temple, John M.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Waddington, David



Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Thorpe, Rt Hn. Jeremy






NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Baxter, William
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bradley, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Silverman, Julius


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Edwin


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, Fred
Mackintosh, John P.



Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Mr. William Molloy and


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Dick Leonard.


Janner, Greville
Probert, Arthur

Resolved,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, 1969, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 52.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[10.54 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fortescue, Tim


Atkins, Humphrey
Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Coombs, Derek
Gardner, Edward


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Green, Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Dixon, Piers
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Boscawen, R. T.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gummer, Selwyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dykes, Hugh
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bray, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Farr, John
Hawkins, Paul


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Hay, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fidler, Michael
Heseltine, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Paul
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Sinclair, Sir George


Holland Philip
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


Holt, Miss Mary
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Spence, John


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricla
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mudd, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Kilfedder, James

Temple, John M.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kinsey, J. R.
Peel, John
Thomas, John Stradilng (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon S.)


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lambton, Antony
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trew, Peter


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCrindle, R. A.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McLaren, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Waddington, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, East)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maginnis, John E.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marten, Neil
Rost, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Mather, Carol
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wylie, Rt Hn. N. R.


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard



Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)






NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Baxter, William
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bradley, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James


Campell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Silverman, Julius


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael



Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Mr. William Molloy and


Hunter, Adam
Meacher, Michael
Mr. Dick Leonard.


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

STANDING ORDERS (REVISION)

Ordered,
That Mr. Laurie Pavitt be discharged from the Select Committee on Standing Orders (Revision) and that Mr. Alexander Lyon be added.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

MULTI-STOREY FLATS, FELLING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The subject which I wish to raise this evening is of great importance to my constituents and is of considerable concern to many other local authorities. It arises from the unfortunate and tragic disaster at Ronan Point some two years ago.
Following that disaster, it was found necessary to instruct all local authorities with buildings of similar construction within their areas to strengthen flats to avoid any further disasters. Nobody, of course, would quarrel with that decision, but it has led to many difficulties. The particular difficulty in relation to Felling and almost certainly every other authority concerned, is that of finance. The Felling local authority is probably affected more from this point of view than any other authority, and later in my remarks I will say a little more about that aspect.
It was a great pity that the Minister declined to accept the request I made some three months ago for him to meet a deputation from the Felling Urban District Council to discuss this serious problem. No doubt he has much other detailed work to attend to, but on reflection I think he will feel that it might have been better if he had met those representatives to hear at first hand their views about how the situation affects their housing revenue account and rating in the area. I hope that in future he

will agree to meet such deputations. It is only by a free interchange of view between Ministers and people within the authorities that the democratic processes in the relationship of national to local government will work.
I come to the crux of the matter. There is no question that the cost of strengthening multi-storey blocks of flats puts a great financial burden on local authorities. The authority in Felling probably is affected more than any other single local authority. This has been recognised by Ministerial decisions in the past.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has decided to endorse the decisions arrived at before he came to office. However, those decisions were made largely as a result of the representations which many hon. Members made to the previous Minister. All along the line, the local authority associations have expressed dissatisfaction about the level of grant to be made to local authorities for the work and, in addition, many individual authorities have supported them. I know, too, that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made similar approaches. There has been a unanimity of view on the level of grant to be made towards the cost of the strengthening work.
To state an historical fact, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor decided initially that a 45 per cent. grant should be made to local authorities towards the cost of this work. That was completely inadequate, and hon. Members said so at the time. As a result of representations made to the then Minister, he decided to increase the proportion to 50 per cent.; in other words, the Government of the day agreed to pay half the cost of the strengthening work. We still considered that to be completely inadequate.
However, following representations from members of the Felling council, the Minister was persuaded that there were special circumstances in Felling's case. It had been decided that it was necessary in the North East to achieve 25 units per annum. It was impossible to achieve that target unless industrialised building methods were adopted. As a result, the Ministry pressed the local authority to engage in industrialised building, and the authority embarked upon a large building programme of this kind. That is the


reason why it finds itself in so much trouble today.
In view of the special circumstances of the Felling council, a unique formula was adopted. It was decided that the 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of the strengthening work should be reduced by 1 per cent.: in other words, 49 per cent. was guaranteed to each of the authorities concerned, with the remaining 1 per cent. put into a reserve for distribution to those authorities with the greatest problems. My information is that one of the few authorities to qualify for this additional aid was Felling. Again, the special problems of Felling were recognised.
The Minister now informs the council that, from the reserve made up of the 1 per cent. that was withheld from authorities, Felling is to receive 75 per cent. of the total cost of its strengthening work, as opposed to 49 or 50 per cent. The council is extremely pleased that its special problems have been recognised and that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to pay this additional grant. But there still remain extremely serious financial problems.
The council is unable to withstand the burden of the strengthening costs without additional aid from the Ministry. I suggest that, in all fairness, it would be right and proper that the Ministry should agree to meet 100 per cent. the total cost of the strengthening work.
The Minister will probably reply: "We feel that this is a fair proportion of the cost as between the national Government and the local government". Indeed, I remind him, if he has not got it on his file, that his predecessor told me in correspondence that the original 45 per cent. was considered equitable as between the national Government, the local government, the contractor and the consultants.
I asked—I hope that the hon. Gentleman can answer this question tonight—"How does a contractor working on a fixed-price contract meet his fair proportion of the cost of the liability?" I have not yet received an answer to that question.
I have dealt with the cost of the strengthening work. I turn to another aspect of the problem. I should explain that in Felling there are two separate and distinct developments of the multi-storey

type. One is at Crowhall Lane, which, at the time of the Ronan Point disaster, was tenanted. The other, a larger development, is at Nursery Lane where there are four multi-storey blocks. Two of those four blocks were ready for occupation; the other two were near completion. Because of the Ronan Point disaster, the council decided not to put tenants into the completed flats because it wished to act responsibly. But, having taken this decision, the council finds that it is suffering financially, because the hon. Gentleman is allowing, for grant purposes, a rent loss only on the flats which had to be vacated so that the strengthening work could proceed, and he adamantly refuses to agree, for grant purposes, rent loss on the flats which were not occupied.
The rent loss on those unoccupied flats, which do not qualify for rent loss for grant purposes, related to the major part of the development at Nursery Lane. It may surprise the House to learn that the rent loss on this development alone amounts to £110,000. In terms of the budget and finance of his Ministry, the hon. Gentleman may not consider this a large amount. But I assure him that, for a small urban district council, this is a substantial and crippling amount which it cannot afford. Therefore, the council must receive additional aid.
The Felling Council has faced its responsibilities vis-à-vis the housing revenue account with great responsibility. Indeed, I was interested to see tonight's Evening Standard with a rather dramatic headline forecasting annual rent increases from now on for council property. Because of its financial circumstances Felling Council has had to apply annual rent increases over the last four years, and rent increases are therefore no new feature to the housing revenue account.

Mr. Albert Roberts: What is the population of Felling?

Mr. Conlan: It is 40,000, and to distribute this tremendous amount between this relatively small number of people will impose a heavy burden, indeed.
I conclude by urging the hon. Gentleman to give further thought and consideration to what is generally accepted to be a most genuine case. If the hon. Gentleman cannot concede that his Ministry will pay more than 75 per cent. towards the cost of the structural work, and


if he cannot make some contribution towards the substantial rent loss which has been experienced by this council, the population of this small urban district will have forced upon it an inequitable burden which will be out of all proportion to its size.

11.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I think the House will agree that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) is right to put forward this very important point this evening. This matter is important to his constituency, and it has wider implications than just for Felling U.D.C. I am sure that no hon. Member, on either side, who has examined the effect of the accident at Ronan Point fails to realise the appallingly difficult and unforeseen management and financial problems that have arisen for both large and small local authorities. The consequences of the Ronan Point disaster have been very far-reaching indeed, and I do not minimise them, though I shall have to disagree with some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said.
I hope that the House will allow me to spend a moment or two in trying to get the record straight. This debate, dealing, as it does, with Felling, begins with the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry set up to investigate the collapse at Ronan Point. The Tribunal's most important finding was that the behaviour of Ronan Point following the explosion which removed a load-bearing flank wall was inherent in its design. It followed that other blocks in similar construction were at risk, and the Tribunal went on to recommend that such blocks should be examined and, if necessary, strengthened to prevent a further tragedy occurring. I am sure that the House will agree that that was a wise thing to do.
The previous Administration then issued guidance to local authorities in 1968, Circular 62, in the light of the Tribunals findings. Local authorities were advised to appraise all blocks over six storeys in height built of large precast concrete panels to form load-bearing walls or floors, or both, for progressive collapse, wind-loading, and fire. They were also advised to check the wind-loading on all tall buildings over 100

feet. It has been the responsibility of each local authority to decide what action to take in view of the guidance given in the circular, and having regard to the advice of its own professional officers or consultants.
I do not think that any hon. Member would question the need to appraise and, if necessary, strengthen blocks found to be at risk by this independent and highly qualified Tribunal. The question of people's safety is the prime consideration, but the hon. Gentleman rightly raises the question not of safety but of the financial responsibility for the loss that has to be borne. This is a matter of importance to the local authorities which have been confronted with unexpected bills for strengthening work.
Here again the Tribunal's report has some relevance. The previous Administration took the view that the report demonstrated a broad spread of responsibility involving both central and local government, the building industry and the professions. Because of that shared responsibility, eventually the previous Administration thought it right to offer to meet half the total admissible costs incurred by local authorities in the course of carrying out remedial work. I say "eventually" because, as the House will recall, their original offer was only 40 per cent. This was later increased under pressure from various quarters, including the present Government when they were the Opposition.
I refer to the Amendment to the Housing Bill, moved on 16th July, 1969 by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke in another place. In the event that Amendment was withdrawn, but its essence was later embodied in the decision to share costs admissible for grant equally between the central Government and local government. This matter was debated in the House on 18th June, 1969, when pressure from various quarters in the House, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, led to a debate on this important issue. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) ought to be congratulated on raising this matter on so many occasions.
I am tempted, in view of the hon. Member's remarks tonight, about my


refusing to receive his deputation, to say that I should be more impressed with his claim to have some effect on that decision if I could pay regard to his intervention in that debate, or his taking part in any Division. No doubt he will be able to explain to his constituents why he did not do so. The details of the last Government's decision were finally notified to local authorities in Circular 29/70 on 21st April, 1970.
I turn to the details of the grant circular. These are very important, because they set out the terms on which local authorities will get grant. There are several areas of controversy. There is the question of the level of the Government's contribution, to which the hon. Member referred. It has sometimes been argued that the Exchequer should meet 100 per cent. of the costs because the Government urged that local authorities should use system building. No one can dispute the fact that successive Governments have encouraged building by industrialised methods, but I do not think that it logically follows from that that the Government should meet the whole of the cost of any resultant defect. Local authorities are independent bodies who, in the last analysis, could have refused to use industrialised building methods, if they did not want them. I do not want to rest my case upon this because the question of philosophy is not important.
It is an exceedingly difficult question to decide what is the correct level of Government contribution in this case. I would point out, however, that the Government are not party to any of the building contracts in question and that there is no liability on them to meet the cost of defects which may arise. I believe that there is no case in logic for a 100 per cent. Government contribution, and if there be no case in logic, it becomes a matter of judgment rather than of arithmetic as to what the level of contribution should be.
My right hon. Friends, when in opposition, were in no doubt that the last Administration's original offer of 40 per cent. was too mean and, as I have already reminded the House, among others we lent our weight to pressure for an increase. But given the decision to fix a grant of 50 per cent., it was as well

that one-fiftieth was held back to enable Ministers to give help to small, hard-hit authorities. The grant is not 50 per cent. to all local authorities; it is 49 per cent., and 1 per cent. is held back to help the small, hard-hit authorities. This has enabled us to give Felling substantial additional assistance, as the hon. Member pointed out. In fact, it will receive grant at a rate of 75 per cent. This reflects the exceptional burden with which it is faced. I shall return to the particular circumstances of Felling in a moment.

Mr. Conlan: If the hon. Member's party mounted so much pressure when in opposition, why is he now adhering to the decision taken by his predecessor? Why does not he go much further than his predecessor did?

Mr. Channon: That is nice of the hon. Member, when he could not persuade his own Government to have a go. I shall deal with the point of Felling and the financial effects on that council.
Local authorities also pressed for rent losses to rank for grant. The circular admits for grant actual rent losses which are incurred when blocks have to be vacated to allow for remedial work. But local authorities also wanted grant for "notional losses". The view of the last Government was that it was important to distinguish between expenditure and what was no more than a short-fall in anticipated income. I recognise that such losses can confront a local authority with a substantial additional burden in the short term and, on taking office, my right hon. Friend looked carefully at all the representations which had been made, including those raised tonight.
I accept the great difficulties which Felling faces and I am certainly not indifferent. Felling has by far the greatest long-term annual burden of all the authorities affected by the collapse at Ronan Point. Felling has five blocks containing 469 dwellings, some of which I have seen. Felling was advised that all needed strengthening, and the total cost is estimated at £709,000. The annual loan charges on this sum, based on a 60-year borrowing, would be equivalent to a standard rate of about 8d. or 9d. in the £. Even after allowing for Exchequer grant at 49 per cent., the council would still have been left with a burden of more than a standard 4d. rate.
This was so much more than the burden faced by any other authority, and obviously so much more than a comparatively small urban district council could be expected to bear, that it was thought right to award it a special rate or grant of 75 per cent.—and that is the rate that it will get on all its admissible expenditure. I hope that it is not ungrateful for this, particularly as it is the only authority in the United Kingdom to have established a claim on the special fund. A 75 per cent. grant will bring its long-term burden down to only a fraction over a 2d. rate. It means that, on present estimates, the taxpayer will contribute to Felling about £532,000 out of an admissible expenditure of £709,000.
Felling is also one of the authorities affected in the short term by the decision not to accept notional losses of rent for grant. I understand that the council estimates that it has lost £60,000 in notional rent income. I accept that this will result in a heavy short-term burden. I appreciate and sympathise with the council but, as I have explained to the House, not only now but in July, there is no possibility of treating it differently from other authorities for these notional losses. There are many other authorities similarly affected.
I know that, in August, I declined to receive a deputation which the hon. Member wished to bring. This was not because I am unwilling to see councils and to discuss their problems; on the contrary, I am only too pleased to do so. I receive many deputations from councils and hope to go on doing so. It is simply that we were well aware of Felling's difficulties. There has been lengthy correspondence between by Department and Felling on the council's problems. A series of meetings had already taken place at Ministerial and official level. Two deputations were received from Felling in August 1969 and November 1969, and there were four meetings with the local authority associations at which officials of Felling U.D.C. were present in their capacity as representatives of the U.D.C.A.
Since we had decided that it would not be right to disturb the previous Government's settlement, there was no possibility of any further concessions, and I thought that another meeting would have

served no useful purpose but would simply have raised false hopes which it would have been wrong to do when there was no possibility of making an exception in this case. It was for that reason alone—because I thought that it was fairer to the hon. Member and his authority—that the deputation was not received.
On present estimates the total admissible costs of appraisal and strengthening by the local authorities concerned may be around £25 million. The Exchequer grant will therefore total about £12½ million. It would have been very pleasant to increase the amount of Exchequer assistance, but I am sorry to say that this is just not possible, in view of the financial and economic situation which we have to face at present.
Therefore, the terms of the settlement must be looked at as a package. Of course one could have taken a different view of some of the points. We could undo the package and rearrange the contents, but whatever was done, the net result could be no more than to benefit some authorities at the expense of others. Within the financial limits of the grant, one could not hope to satisfy every authority.
Is it right to tamper with a grant settlement which took the best part of two years to hammer out? I think not. The arrangements provide for an equal split of admissible costs between central and local government and for more help to be given to needier authorities. So far, the only one has been that discussed tonight, Felling U.D.C. That is not to deny that some other authorities may be faced with substantial costs in the short term, but I hope that the long-term effect will not be too serious.
I do not want to minimise the problems which Ronan Point has posed. They have been most unfortunate, an unfortunate setback in house building. The arguments concerning grant—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.